DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-11 

Table S-3.11-8 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Clark County Air Basin, 2030 

 Criteria Pollutant Emissions CO2e 

Emissions, 

tons per yeara ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5

DEMU Technology Option 

 Railway Emissions 35 612 137 17 21 19 45,695 

 Mobile-source Emissions (67) (58) (2,231) (3) (8) (4) (136,696) 

 Net Emissions (32) 554 (2,094) 14 13 15 (91,001) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 100 70 70 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No N/A 

EMU Technology Option

 Railway Emissions <1 29 5 3 1 1 18,197 

 Mobile-source Emissions (85) (74) (2,830) (3) (10) (5) (173,422) 

 Net Emissions (85) (45) (2,825) <1 (9) (4) (155,225) 

General Conformity 

Threshold 

50 50 100 100 70 70 -- 

Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No N/A 

a Criteria pollutant emissions expressed in short tons (1 ton = 2,000 lbs); CO2e emissions expressed in metric tons (1 ton = 

2,204.62 lbs) 

Source: ICF International, May 2010. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Permanent Effects 

Relative to the Victorville station options evaluated in the Draft EIS, VV3 is 4.5 miles 

north of VV2, and 6 miles north of VV1. The facilities and associated activities at VV3 

would be the same as either VV1 or VV2. 

The air quality analysis in Section 3.11.4 of the Draft EIS utilized VV2 to calculate 

emissions. VV3 would be located 4.5 miles further north along the I-15 freeway resulting 

in a slightly longer vehicle trip from for most southern California based passengers and 

slightly shorter train trip to Las Vegas. 

To determine if VV3 would substantially change ridership, the ridership forecasts were 

reviewed. The review determined the location of VV3 would result in a less than one 

percent change in ridership. It was also determined that while vehicle travel time to VV3 

would be three to four minutes longer than trips to VV1 or VV2, this would not constitute a 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-12 

substantially increase in overall vehicle travel time from southern California origins.2 

Because of the modest increase in travel time, traffic-related air quality effects would 

remain similar to those discussed in the Draft EIS. 

However, vehicles accessing VV3 would use different local roadways, primarily Dale Evans 

Parkway to access the station. A CO hotspot analysis was conducted to determine 

localized air quality effects from project-related traffic. Tables S-3.11-9 and S-3.11-10

summarize the results of the CO hotspot analysis which determined that traffic associated 

with VV3 would not result in localized CO concentrations exceeding either 1-hour or 8-

hour national ambient air quality standards for CO. 

Temporary Effects 

The parking options for VV3 plan for surface parking areas ranging from about 111 acres 

(VV3B) to 130 acres (VV3A). VV3A would thus have a slightly larger surface parking area 

than VV1 or VV2 (107 and 115 acres respectively). The increase in parking area size would 

result in VV3A having a marginal increase in criteria pollutant emissions and GHG 

emissions associated with site grading, asphalt paving activity, and truck haul trips 

relative to VV1 or VV2. 

OMSF 2 

Permanent Effects 

The proposed revision to OMSF 2 would reduce the footprint size but would not alter the 

number of employees or overall activities occurring at the site. Since pollutant emissions 

were calculated based on the proposed activities at the site, and these have not changed, 

there would be no change to the air pollutant emissions previously calculated for this site. 

Temporary Effects 

The total construction footprint for OMSF2 has been reduced by 21.7 acres since 

completion of the Draft EIS and therefore less grading and construction equipment would 

be required at this site. As a result of the reduced construction footprint, the revised 

OMSF2 site would result in fewer adverse construction period air quality and global 

climate effects when compared to the OMSF 2 site in the Draft EIS. 

 

2 Stantec Consulting Services, April 13, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality an

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-13 

Table S-3.11-9 VV3 Local Area Hotspot Analysis, 2013 

Intersection Technology 

Option 

Maximum 1-

Hour 2013 Base 

Concentration 

(ppm)b

Maximum 1-

Hour 2013 With 

Project 

Concentration 

(ppm)b

Significant 1-

Hour 

Concentration 

Impact?c

Maximum 8-

Hour 2013 Base 

Concentration 

(ppm)d

Maximum 8

Hour 2013 W

Project 

Concentratio

(ppm)d

I-15 NB Ramps and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 3.0 3.7 No 1.9 2.4 

EMU 3.0 4.3 No 1.9 2.8 

I-15 SB Ramps and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 3.0 3.7 No 1.9 2.4 

EMU 3.0 4.2 No 1.9 2.7 

Station Access #1 and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 2.9 3.8 No 1.8 2.4 

EMU 2.9 4.2 No 1.8 2.7 

Future Street and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 2.6 3.4 No 1.6 2.2 

EMU 3.0 3.5 No 1.9 2.2 

Future Street and Station Access #5 

DEMU 3.1 3.3 No 2.0 2.1 

EMU 3.1 3.4 No 2.0 2.2 

DEMU=Diesel-electric multiple unit train EMU=Electric multiple unit train ppm = parts per million a Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, October 2009. b Includes 1-hour background concentration of 2.6 ppm. c The state standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm. d Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 1.6 ppm. e The state standard for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 

Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, November 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality an

August 2010 Supplem

3.11-14 

Table S-3.11-10 VV3, Local Area Hotspot Analysis, 2030 

Intersection Technology 

Option 

Maximum 1-

Hour 2030 Base 

Concentration 

(ppm)b

Maximum 1-

Hour 2030 With 

Project 

Concentration 

(ppm)b

Significant 1-

Hour 

Concentration 

Impact?c

Maximum 8-

Hour 2030 Base 

Concentration 

(ppm)d

Maximum 8

Hour 2030Wi

Project 

Concentratio

(ppm)d

I-15 NB Ramps and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 2.9 3.1 No 1.8 2.0 

EMU 2.9 3.1 No 1.8 2.0 

I-15 SB Ramps and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 3.1 3.3 No 2.0 2.1 

EMU 3.1 3.4 No 2.0 2.2 

Future Street and Dale Evans Parkway 

DEMU 3.2 3.2 No 2.0 2.0 

EMU 3.2 3.2 No 2.0 2.0 

DEMU=Diesel-electric multiple unit train EMU=Electric multiple unit train ppm = parts per million a Peak hour traffic volumes are based on the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project by DMJM Harris/AECOM, October 2009. b Includes 1-hour background concentration of 2.6 ppm. c The state standard for the 1-hour average CO concentration is 20 ppm. d Includes 8-hour ambient background concentration of 1.6 ppm. e The state standard for the 8-hour average CO concentration is 9 ppm. 

Source: ICF Jones & Stokes, November 2009. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-15 

Segment 2C 

Permanent Effects 

Segment 2C would reduce the total track mileage compared to Segment 1 and Segments 

2A/2B alignments because it would follow a more direct route along the I-15 Freeway. 

This would result in a slight reduction in train emissions when compared to the project 

alternative evaluated in the Draft EIS. Segment 2C would not affect ridership and 

therefore would not result in any change in automobile related emissions. 

Temporary Effects 

Segment 2C would be shorter than the combination of Segment 1 and either Segment 2A 

or Segment 2B, and would therefore require less construction. The shorter rail alignment 

would result in less construction activity, and less construction period air quality impacts, 

including GHG emissions related to construction equipment and truck haul trips, when 

compared with the analysis for the alignment in the Draft EIS. No new adverse 

construction period effects would occur. 

Segment 4C 

Permanent Effects 

Segment 4C would result in a marginal increase in the emissions of criteria pollutants, 

GHGs, and toxic air contaminant (TAC) relative to Segment 4A or Segment 4B, insofar as 

Segment 4C would be about 8 miles longer than Segment 4A or 4B routing options. 

Air quality analysis in the Draft EIS utilized Segment 4A as part of the total action 

alternative for quantitative air quality modeling. Substituting Segment 4C for Segment 

4A would result in a marginal increase in total project air pollutant emissions, but would 

not result in a significant change in overall air pollutant emissions. The proposed project 

utilizing Segment 4C would continue to result in an overall reduction in total criteria 

pollutant, GHG, and TAC emissions compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Temporary Effects 

Construction of Segment 4C would require tunneling at three locations and would result 

in higher air pollutant emissions during temporary construction than either Segment 4A 

or Segment 4B. Mitigation Measures in Section 3.11.5 of the Draft EIS would be applied 

for construction to ensure compliance with fugitive dust control requirements. 

Relocated Sloan MSF and Wigwam MSF Modification 

Permanent Effects 

Any MSF in the Las Vegas area would result in minor contributions of air pollutant 

emissions and GHGs. Operational air pollutant emissions from any of the proposed MSFs 

(Wigwam, Robindale, or the RSMSF) would be generated by employee travel to and from 

the site. The RSMSF is located the greatest distance from metropolitan Las Vegas; 

employee trips to this site would thus likely be the longest and thus have an incremental 

potential to result in the greatest air pollutant and GHG emissions impacts of the three 

sites under consideration. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-16 

Temporary Effects 

The proposed changes to these MSFs would not substantially reduce the footprint or other 

aspects of these facilities that would change the construction air quality effects, including 

the generation of GHGs, discussed in the Draft EIS. No new adverse effects would occur. 

Frias Substation 

Permanent Effects 

The proposed Frias Substation would be an unmanned electrical substation. The 

substation would not itself directly generate air pollutants or GHGs. Vehicle trips to the 

site (which could cause air pollutant or GHG emissions) would be limited to maintenance 

visits. As such, no substantial operational impacts would result. Moreover, the Frias 

Substation would be located immediately adjacent to the Arden-Tolson electrical 

transmission line and would therefore not require an extensive utility corridor, such as 

would be required to connect the electrical substation that is a component of the RSMSF. 

Temporary Effects 

The Frias Substation is a project addition and therefore construction related air quality 

effects would be in addition to those analyzed in Section 3.11.4 of the Draft EIS. 

The proposed Frias Substation would have a footprint of approximately 4.6 acres. 

Construction would require site grading, trenching, foundation construction, and utility 

structure/power line installations. Construction duration is anticipated to be two months 

or less. Facility construction would occur concurrent with adjacent track installation and 

require similar construction equipment. 

The criteria air pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions that would occur as a result of facility 

construction would represent a small fraction of the total regional emissions that would 

result from overall project construction. With respect to localized impacts, sensitive 

receptors closest to the proposed facility include areas of single-family residential 

development approximately 250 feet to the north and to the south of the proposed 

substation site. During the approximately two months of facility construction, these 

sensitive uses would experience a marginal exposure increase to localized criteria 

pollutant and TAC emissions. Mitigation Measures prescribed in Section 3.11.5 of the 

Draft EIS, however, would, be applied to the Frias Substation. There would be no longterm emissions associated with this proposed facility following short-term construction.

Alignment Adjustment Areas and Profile Modification 

Permanent Effects 

The proposed AAAs would be minor alignment shifts (up to 400 feet) that would not 

substantially affect operating characteristics and therefore not result in a change in air 

quality effects discussed in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-17 

Temporary Effects 

The AAAs would only result in minor shifts to the railway, the construction footprint 

would be similar to the alignments analyzed in the Draft EIS. The slight shift in the 

construction footprint would have no material effect on the anticipated constructionrelated emissions. 

The Profile Modification is a 1.3 mile portion of the alignment in Segment 3B in the 

Mojave Desert Air Basin that would be depressed and constructed in a retained cut. This 

Profile Modification would require additional site work as well as retaining wall 

construction, when compared to the project alignment as evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

The criteria air pollutant, TAC, and GHG emissions that would occur as a result of this 

Profile Modification would represent a small fraction of the total regional emissions that 

would result from overall project construction. With respect to localized impacts, there 

are no sensitive receptors present within a radius of several miles that have potential to be 

adversely affected by the marginal increase in localized pollutant emissions. Mitigation 

Measures prescribed in Section 3.11.5 of the Draft EIS, however, would be applied to the 

Profile Modification. There would be no long-term emissions associated with this 

proposed facility following short-term construction. 

3.11.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 identified in Section 3.11.5 of the Draft EIS 

would be applied during the construction of new rail alignments, station site options, 

operations and maintenance facilities, substation, Profile Modification and alignment 

adjustments. These mitigation measures would reduce fugitive dust emissions by 

requiring a fugitive dust control plan for each of the two air basins. Control measures 

required by the dust control plans would include watering for stabilization of disturbed 

surface area, covering loaded haul vehicles, and reducing non-essential earth-moving 

activities during high wind conditions. No additional mitigation would be required. 

Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4, would continue to apply to the Alignment 

Adjustments, Profile Modification, and new rail alignments to reduce NOX if the DEMU 

technology option is chosen. These mitigation measures require the purchase or 

acquisition of NOX emission offset credits in each air basin. 

3.11.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-3 would minimize fugitive dust impacts during 

project construction and Mitigation Measures AQ-2 and AQ-4 would mitigate NOX if 

the DEMU technology option is selected. Following implementation of these mitigation 

measures, the project modifications and additions would not result in any residual 

impacts. 
DesertXpress 3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.11-18 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-1 

3.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

This section describes the noise and vibration conditions and impacts for the project 

modifications and additions. The section also discusses appropriate mitigation measures 

for the project modifications and additions. 

3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Procedures and standards pertinent to noise and vibration identified in Section 3.12.3 of 

the Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and remain applicable to 

the project modifications and additions. 

In addition to evaluating the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed project 

modifications and additions, the noise analysis for Segment 6 contained in Section 

3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS has also been updated to reflect the plan and profile of the rail 

alignment alternatives through the metropolitan Las Vegas area between Blue Diamond 

Road and Flamingo Road, which are on an elevated structure at a height of approximately 

63 feet. In addition, the noise analysis is updated to reflect the addition of a noisesensitive land use in Segment 6, a mobile home park immediately east of I-15 at Blue 

Mountain Road. 

Regional Conditions 

Since publication of the Draft EIS, there has been no substantial change to the regional 

noise and vibration environment within the project area. No major changes to the 

transportation patterns or land uses have occurred since publication of the Draft EIS other 

than the construction of a mobile home park immediately adjacent to Segment 6. 

Of the proposed project modifications and additions, Segment 2C and Segment 4C would 

occur in areas not previously studied. Segment 2C would follow the I-15 freeway corridor 

through central Barstow. In Segment 4, Segment 4C would traverse undeveloped desert 

lands north and west of Segment 4B evaluated in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. A 

discussion of the specific noise and vibration environments within the vicinity of Segment 

2C and Segment 4C is provided below. 

For project modifications and additions other than Segment 2C, the analysis relies upon 

the noise measurements identified in Section 3.12.5.1 of the Draft EIS. Refer to Table 

3.12-6 of the Draft EIS for existing noise measurements. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

VV3, including either parking option, would be located to the west of the I-15 freeway 

corridor in a generally undeveloped area near the Dale Evans Parkway/I-15 interchange. 

There are no noise- or vibration-sensitive land uses, such as residential developments or 

public parks, located within 1,000 feet of the proposed VV3 site. Existing noise in the 

vicinity of this site is dominated by traffic on I-15 and limited traffic volumes on Dale 

Evans Parkway. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-2 

The primary vibration source in this area is the I-15 freeway. The surrounding land is 

undeveloped and vacant and there are no other primary vibration sources in the vicinity of 

the VV3 site that would contribute to the existing vibration conditions. 

OMSF 2 

The location of this facility has not changed. Only the site’s footprint has been reduced. 

There are no noise- or vibration-sensitive uses located within 1,000 feet of OMSF 2. 

Segment 2C 

Appendix S-D provides the detailed noise and vibration evaluation for the Segment 2C 

alignment options. 

The Segment 2C alignment options would follow the existing I-15 corridor through the 

community of Lenwood and the City of Barstow. For both Segment 2C alignment options, 

there are a number of hotels located on the east side of the I-15 freeway near an outlet 

mall. There are a number of single-family residential areas adjacent to the Segment 2C 

alignment options through Barstow. The residential areas are located on the south side of 

the I-15 freeway in the western portion of Barstow and on the north and south sides of the 

I-15 freeway in central and eastern Barstow. 

Existing noise within the vicinity of the Segment 2C alignment options is dominated by 

traffic on the I-15 freeway with traffic on local roads and neighborhood activity also 

contributing to the ambient noise level. 

Noise measurements were taken within Barstow along the I-15 freeway corridor, near 

existing residential neighborhoods. Table S.3-12-1 shows the existing ambient noise 

levels in the vicinity of the Segment 2C alignment options. Figure S-3.12-1 depicts the 

location of these noise measurements. The existing noise levels at these residential areas 

range from approximately 62 dBA to 66dBA. Noise levels of 66 dBA are typical of urban 

environments but are at the limit for normally acceptable noise levels for residential uses. 

Table S-3.12-1 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements – Segment 2C 

Site 

No. 

Measurement Location Start of 

Measurement 

Measurement 

Time (hrs) 

Noise Exposure 

Ldn (dBA) 

Date Time 

LT-S1 27788 Church Avenue, Barstow 10-13-09 11:00 24 62 

LT-S2 1204 Virginia Way, Barstow 10-13-09 13:00 24 66 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 

Segment 4C 

The proposed rail alignment for Segment 4C traverses through undeveloped desert lands 

and the Clark Mountain range north of Mountain Pass, east of the northern unit of the 

Mojave National Preserve. There are no noise- or vibration-sensitive uses located within 

1,000 feet of Segment 4C. There are no residential developments near Mountain Pass. 

The closest potential noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors are located in Primm, NV, 

which include several hotels immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor at the California-
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-3 

Nevada border. The nearest noise- or vibration-sensitive use is located more than 2,000 

feet from the proposed rail alignment. 

Existing noise in this area is dominated by traffic on the I-15 freeway corridor. Through 

the Clark Mountains and into the undeveloped desert area, there are no substantial 

permanent noise sources. 

There are no substantial vibration sources within the vicinity of the majority of Segment 

4C, given the undeveloped nature of the desert lands southwest of the California-Nevada 

state line. Northeast of the state line, the northern portion of Segment 4C would be 

located north/northwest of Primm and the I-15 corridor. In this northern portion, the 

primary vibration source is the existing I-15 freeway corridor. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The Relocated Sloan MSF (RSMSF) site is located immediately adjacent to the I-15 

freeway corridor within an undeveloped area. The lands surrounding the RSMSF site are 

vacant, with the nearest development located approximately 4 miles to the south in Jean. 

There are no noise- or vibration-sensitive uses located within 1,000 feet of the RSMSF 

site. Existing noise in the vicinity is dominated by traffic on the I-15 freeway. 

The primary vibration source in this area is the I-15 freeway. The surrounding land is 

undeveloped and vacant and there are no other primary vibration sources in the vicinity of 

the RSMSF site that would contribute to the existing vibration conditions. 

Frias Substation 

The Frias Substation site is located in the southern Las Vegas metropolitan area, 

immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor. There are a number of single-family 

residential uses within 1,000 feet of the proposed site, including several clusters of 3 to 4 

homes. Residential uses are located to the north on West Haleh Avenue and south on 

Dean Martin Drive and Polaris Avenue. Existing noise in this area is dominated by traffic 

on the I-15 freeway, and to a lesser extent, neighborhood traffic on local roads. 

The primary source of vibration in the area is the I-15 freeway, located immediately east of 

the substation site. No other major vibration sources exist within close proximity to the 

site that would contribute to the existing vibration condition. 

Segment 6 – Revised Draft EIS Evaluation 

Since the original noise measurements taken for the Draft EIS, which are detailed in 

Section 3.12.5.1 of the Draft EIS, a mobile home park (the Oasis Las Vegas Motor Coach 

Park) was developed immediately east of the I-15 freeway in the southeastern quadrant of 

the I-15/Blue Mountain Road interchange. Development of this mobile home park 

introduced new noise- and vibration-sensitive uses within close proximity of the Segment 

6 rail alignments. 

Other noise- and vibration- sensitive uses within the vicinity of Segment 6 include 

residential developments west of the I-15 freeway and hotels and motels on both side of 

the -15 freeway corridor. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-4 

While there are new noise- and vibration sensitive uses, there has not been any substantial 

change in the ambient noise environment. As a result, the original noise measurements 

taken for Segment 6 and reported in Section 3.12.5.1 of the Draft EIS still apply. 

Table S-3.12-2 shows the existing ambient noise levels for Segment 6. The existing noise 

environment ranges from 66 dBA to 71 dBA, which are typical of an urban environment 

but at the general limit for normally acceptable noise environments for residential areas. 

Table S-3.12-2 Existing Ambient Noise Levels – Segment 6 

Site 

No. 

Measurement Location Start of 

Measurement 

Measurement 

Time (hrs) 

Noise 

Exposure Ldn 

(dBA) Date Time 

LT-7 3075 Haleh St, Las Vegas, NV 7-25-06 19:00 24 66 

LT-8 7592 Thistle Poppy St, Las Vegas, NV 7-25-06 20:00 24 71 

LT-9 4205 W. Tropicana Ave, Las Vegas, NV 7-26-06 16:00 24 70 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

AAAs 1 through 7 would not change noise and vibration levels associated with portions of 

Segments 2A/2B, 3B, and 6B. Existing noise and vibration in these areas is dominated by 

traffic on the I-15 freeway corridor. 

AAA 8 would shift a portion of Segment 6B outside of the existing I-15 freeway corridor 

and into the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road between Hacienda Avenue and 

Tropicana Avenue, closer to existing noise- and vibration-sensitive uses located along 

Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road. The existing noise- and vibration-sensitive uses 

include residential areas west of the I-15 freeway, a large mobile home park on the east 

side of I-15, and numerous hotels on both sides of the I-15 freeway. The primary source of 

noise and vibration in the area is the I-15 freeway corridor. To a lesser extent, 

neighborhood traffic also contributes to the existing noise environment. 

Noise measurement LT-7 listed in Table S-3.12-2 provides a representative existing 

noise level for the general vicinity of AAA 8. Appendix S-D provides the detailed noise 

and vibration evaluation for Segment 6B ad modified by AAA 8. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

While the development footprint of the Wigwam MSF has been modified, the location of 

this facility has not changed since publication of the Draft EIS. The existing noise and 

vibration levels are the same as presented for the Wigwam MSF in Section 3.12.5.2 of 

the Draft EIS. There are a number of single-family residential uses within 1,000 feet of 

the Wigwam MSF site, including small clusters of three to four residences to the west on 

Dean Martin Drive and north on Wigwam Avenue. Existing noise in this area is 

dominated by traffic on the I-15 freeway, and to a lesser extent, neighborhood traffic on 

the nearby local roads. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-5 

The primary vibration source within this area is the I-15 freeway to the east. No other 

major vibration sources exiting within close proximity to the site that would contribute to 

the existing vibration condition. 

Profile Modification 

The proposed profile modification is located in the same existing noise and vibration 

environment as Segment 3B as described in Section 3.12.5.2 of the Draft EIS. Existing 

noise and vibration in the vicinity of the profile modification is dominated by traffic on the 

I-15 freeway. 

3.12.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology used in Section 3.12.4 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential noise and vibration effects of the project modifications and additions. Future 

noise levels were modeled and compared to the existing noise measurements to determine 

the change in noise levels and specific noise impacts. 

There are two levels of noise impact considered – “severe” and “impact.” These two 

classifications are consistent with FRA noise impact criteria. 

 Severe: Severe noise impacts identify locations where a significant percentage of 

people would be highly annoyed by noise from the high-speed rail alignment. FRA 

particularly encourages noise abatement on high-speed train projects where such 

severe noise impacts are identified. 

 Impact: A noise impact identifies an area where the change in the cumulative 

noise level is noticeable to most people, but may not be sufficient to cause strong, 

adverse reactions from the community. In this transitional area, other projectspecific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and 

the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase 

over existing noise levels and the types and numbers of noise-sensitive land uses 

affected. 

Noise is typically defined as unwanted or undesirable sound. The basic parameters of 

environmental noise that affect human response are (1) intensity or level, (2) frequency 

content, and (3) variation with time. The intensity of level of noise is expressed on a 

compressed scale in units of decibels (dB). By using this scale, the range of normally 

encountered sound can be expressed by values between 0 and 120 dB. On a relative scale, 

a 3 dB change in sound is usually the smallest of unit of change in noise levels perceptible 

to the human ear, whereas a 10 dB change in sound level would typically be perceived as a 

doubly (or halving) in the loudness of a sound. Noise levels and intensity also involve 

varying frequencies. As the sensitivity of human hearing varies with frequency, the Aweighting system is commonly used when measuring environmental noise to provide a 

single number descriptor that correlates with the human subjective response. Sound 

levels measured using this weighting system are called “A-weighted” sound level, and are 

expressed in dB notation a dBA. At a distance of 50 feet, a noise level of 60 dBA is 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-6 

equivalent to a commercial air conditioner, 70 dBA is equivalent to a lawn mower, 80 dBA 

is equivalent to a bus travelling at 55 miles per hour (mph), and 90 dBA is equivalent to a 

jack hammer. 

Sensitivity to noise also increases at night, as the background noise levels are typically 

limited and the overall ambient noise levels are usually lower than noise levels during the 

day. The Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is used to calculate a 24-hour period of cumulative 

noise exposure, with an added 10 dB penalty imposed on noise that occurs during the 

nighttime hours (between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM). 

In regards to vibration, the potential vibration impact from the project modifications and 

additions was assessed on an absolute basis using FRA criteria, which is based on land use 

and train frequency. Table S-3.12-3 summarizes the vibration impact criteria. The 

vibration propagation tests conducted for the evaluation in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft 

EIS were utilized as part of this Supplemental Draft EIS. The train vibration 

characteristics were combined with the ground vibration propagation test results to 

project vibration levels as a function of distance for the project modifications and 

additions. 

Table S-3.12-3 Vibration Impact Criteria 

Land Use Category Ground-Borne Vibration Impact (VdB re: 1 micoinch/sec) 

Frequent Events1 Infrequent Events2

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would 

interfere with interior operations 

65 VdB3

 65 VdB3

Category 2: Residences are buildings where 

people normally sleep 

72 VdB 80 VdB 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 

daytime use 

75 VdB 83VdB 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2005. 

Notes: 

1 – Frequent Events is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 

2 – Infrequent events is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. 

3 – This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable 

vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often require special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened

floors. 

This evaluation considers noise and vibration effects of the project modifications and 

additions for both the operational period and construction period, consistent with the 

evaluation of the action alternatives in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. It is assumed 

that operation period effects would be permanent, while construction period effects would 

be temporary in nature. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-7 

3.12.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions per these criteria. 

Regional Conditions 

The proposed project modifications and additions would not introduce any new type of 

feature not previously considered in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. Thus, there 

would be no substantial change to the conclusions of the regional noise and vibration 

effects as presented in Section 3.12.5.1 of the Draft EIS. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

VV3 would introduce new noise and vibration sources associated with train activities 

within the station area during operation. However, there are no noise- or vibrationsensitive receptors in close proximity to the site. As such, no operational period noise or 

vibration effects would occur. 

Construction Effects 

Construction of VV3 for either parking option would introduce temporary noise and 

vibration sources during construction activities. Since there are no sensitive receptors 

within 1,000 feet of VV3 for either parking option, no construction noise or vibration 

effects would occur. 

Segment 2C 

Appendix S-D provides the detailed noise and vibration evaluation for the Segment 2C 

alignment options. 

Operational Period Noise 

Operation of the Segment 2C alignment options would result in an increase in noise 

associated with train pass-bys and would result in adverse noise effects on the adjacent 

noise- and vibration-sensitive hotel and residential uses. 

The EMU and DEMU technology options would result in varying noise effects. The 

DEMU has a higher reference noise level (a noise level at a specific distance and speed) 

than the EMU. While the EMU technology option has a maximum speed of 150 mph and 

the DEMU technology option has a maximum speed of 125 mph, the speed difference is 

not large enough to overcome the higher reference level for the DEMU technology option 

at the maximum speed conditions. 

Segment 2C Side Running: Tables S-3.12-4 and S-3.12-5 summarize the noise 

effects associated with operation of the Segment 2C Side Running alignment for the EMU 

and DEMU technology options, respectively. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-8 

Noise effects along the Segment 2C Side Running alignment would be limited to areas 

within Barstow and Yermo, where the rail alignment would be in close proximity to the 

hotel and residential uses immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway. 

Table S-3.12-4 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Side Running – EMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase in 

Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Lenwood Rd, 

Days Inn SB 215 62 63 58 64 65 3.6 1 0 

Lenwood Rd, 

Country Inn and 

Suites 

NB 365 62 60 58 64 64 2.3 1 0 

L St to H St SB 130-

350 62 58-63 58 64 63-65 1.7-3.7 4 0 

Grace St SB 45-150 66 61-69 61 66 67-71 1.3-5.0 7 15 

Mount Vernon 

Ave, Church of 

the Nazarene 

SB 45 60 71 62 68 71 11.0 0 1 

Coolwater Ln, 

Days Inn SB 110 66 64 61 66 68 2.3 1 0 

Western Whip Ct 

to Muriel Dr SB 60-190 66 61-68 61 66 67-70 1.2-4.0 7 8 

Muriel Dr to Kelly 

Dr SB 50-200 66 61-69 61 66 67-70 1.2-4.7 35 9 

Elephant 

Mountain Rd SB 170 63 60 60 65 65 1.6 3 0 

Ghost Town Rd, 

Oak Tree Inn NB 160 63 60 60 65 65 1.8 1 0 

Total 60 33 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location.
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-9 

Table S-3.12-5 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Side Running – DEMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase in 

Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Lenwood Rd, 

Days Inn SB 215 62 64 58 64 66 4.2 1 0 

Lenwood Rd, 

Country Inn and 

Suites 

NB 365 62 61 58 64 64 2.7 1 0 

Ironwood Rd to L 

St. NB 225-

295 62 59-60 58 64 63-64 1.9-2.5 4 0 

L St to H St SB 130-

775 62 59-65 58 64 63-67 1.8-5.3 11 1 

Grace St SB 45-250 66 61-72 61 66 67-73 1.2-6.9 26 17 

Mount Vernon 

Ave, Church of 

the Nazarene 

SB 45 60 73 62 68 73 13.4 0 1 

Grace St, Victory 

Outreach SB 220 60 63 62 68 65 4.8 1 0 

Sandalwood Ct NB 220-

325 66 61-63 61 66 67-68 1.3-1.9 12 0 

Coolwater Ln, 

Days Inn SB 110 66 67 61 66 69 3.5 0 1 

Western Whip Ct 

to Muriel Dr SB 60-270 66 61-70 61 66 67-71 1.4-5.4 15 14 

Muriel Dr to Kelly 

Dr SB 50-290 66 61-71 61 66 67-72 1.3-6.5 57 14 

Center Ln to 

Mojave River NB 330 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 2 0 

Hacienda Ln NB 300 63 60 60 65 65 1.8 5 0 

Elephant 

Mountain Rd SB 170 63 61 60 65 65 2.0 3 0 

Ghost Town Rd, 

Oak Tree Inn, NB 160 63 61 60 65 65 2.2 1 0 

Total 139 48 

Source: HMMH, 2010 Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-10 

Lenwood Road, Days Inn/Country Inn and Suites, Barstow – There are several motels, 

including the Days Inn and County Inn and Suites, on the east side of I-15 freeway. The 

Segment 2C Side Running alignment would be located across the I-15 freeway to the west. 

The noise impact is due to the low existing noise levels at this location. 

Ironwood Road to H Street, Barstow – There are a number of single-family residences to 

the north and south of the I-15 freeway corridor within western Barstow. The noise 

impacts in this location are due to the low existing noise levels and the proximity of the 

residences to the rail alignment. 

Grace Street, Barstow – There are a number of single-family and multi-family residences 

to the north of I-15 in this area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close 

proximity of the residences to the rail alignment. 

Mount Vernon Avenue, Church of the Nazarene, Barstow – There is a church adjacent to 

the residential area on Grace Street to the north of I-15. The noise impact at this location 

is due to the close proximity of the church to the rail alignment. 

Grace Street, Victory Outreach, Barstow – There is a second church adjacent to the 

residential area on Grace Street to the north of I-15. The noise impact at this location is 

due to the close proximity of the church to the rail alignment. 

Sandalwood Court, Barstow – There are a number of single-family residences to the 

south of I-15 in this area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity 

of the residence to the rail alignment. 

Coolwater Lane, Days Inn, Barstow – There is a motel adjacent to a single-family 

residential area to the north of I-15 in the center of Barstow. The noise impact at this 

location is due to the close proximity of the motel to the rail alignment. 

Western Whip Court to Mojave River, Barstow – There are a number of single-family 

residences to the north of I-15 and a mobile home park and several scattered residences to 

the south of I-15 in this portion of Barstow. The noise impacts are due to the proximity of 

the residences and mobile home park to the rail alignment. 

Hacienda Lane, Barstow – There are several single-family residences to the south of I-15 

at this location. The noise impacts are due to the low existing noise levels and the close 

proximity of the residences to the rail alignment. 

Elephant Mountain Road, Yermo – There are a number of single-family residences to the 

north of I-15 at this location. The noise impacts are due to the low existing noise levels 

and the close proximity of the residences to the rail alignment. 

Ghost Town Road, Oak Tree Inn, Yermo – There is a motel to the south of I-15 at this 

location. The noise impact is due to the low existing noise levels and the close proximity 

of the motel to the rail alignment. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-11 

Segment 2C Median: Tables S-3.12-6 and S-3.12-7 summarizes noise effects 

associated with operation of the Segment 2C Median alignment option for the EMU and 

DEMU technology options, respectively. 

Table S-3.12-6 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Median – EMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist 

to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Days Inn, Lenwood 

Rd SB 215 62 63 58 64 65 3.6 1 0 

Country Inn and 

Suites, Lenwood Rd NB 365 62 60 58 64 64 2.3 1 0 

L St to H St SB 130-

350 62 58-63 58 64 63-65 1.7-3.7 4 0 

Grace St SB 150-

170 66 61-62 61 66 67 1.3-1.5 14 0 

Church of the 

Nazarene, Mount 

Vernon Ave 

SB 150 60 63 62 68 65 5.2 1 0 

Sandalwood Ct NB 120-

180 66 62-64 61 66 67-68 1.4-2.1 9 0 

Western Whip Ct to 

Muriel Dr SB 110 66 64 61 66 68 2.3 14 0 

Muriel Dr to Kelly Dr SB 125-

170 66 61-64 61 66 67-68 1.2-2.1 29 0 

Center Ln to Mojave 

River NB 190 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 3 0 

Elephant Mountain 

Rd SB 170 63 60 60 65 65 1.6 3 0 

Oak Tree Inn, Ghost 

Town Rd NB 160 63 60 60 65 65 1.8 1 0 

Total 80 0 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-12 

Table S-3.12-7 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Median – DEMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase in 

Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Days Inn, 

Lenwood Rd SB 215 62 64 58 64 66 4.2 1 0 

Country Inn and 

Suites, Lenwood 

Rd 

NB 365 62 61 58 64 64 2.7 1 0 

Ironwood Rd to L 

St. NB 225-

295 62 59-60 58 64 63-64 1.9-2.5 4 0 

L St to H St SB 130-

775 62 59-65 58 64 63-67 1.8-5.3 11 1 

L St to H St NB 330 62 59 58 64 64 1.9 1 0 

Grace St SB 150-

250 66 61-64 61 66 67-68 1.3-2.3 22 0 

Church of the 

Nazarene, Mount 

Vernon Ave 

SB 150 60 66 62 68 67 7.0 1 0 

Sandalwood Ct NB 120-

350 66 61-66 61 66 67-69 1.2-3.3 21 2 

Western Whip Ct 

to Muriel Dr SB 110-250 66 62-67 61 66 67-69 1.6-3.5 12 14 

Muriel Dr to Kelly 

Dr SB 100-

250 66 61-66 61 66 67-69 1.3-3.3 38 5 

Center Ln to 

Mojave River NB 190-

270 66 61-63 61 66 67-68 1.3-2.0 6 0 

Hacienda Ln NB 300 63 60 60 65 65 1.8 5 0 

Elephant 

Mountain Rd SB 170 63 61 60 65 65 2.0 3 0 

Oak Tree Inn, 

Ghost Town Rd NB 160 63 61 60 65 65 2.2 1 0 

Total 127 22 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-13 

Similar to the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option, the noise effects along the 

Segment 2C Median alignment would be limited to areas within Barstow and Yermo, 

where the rail alignment would be in close proximity to the hotel and residential uses 

immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway. The noise effects for the Segment 2C Median 

alignment option would be the same as those for the Segment 2C Side Running alignment 

option west of L Street in Barstow, as both rail alignments would follow the same I-15 side 

running corridor. 

The noise impacts from the Segment 2C Median alignment option are the same as the 

Segment 2C Side Running alignment option at the following locations: 

 Lenwood Road, Days Inn/Country Inn and Suites, Barstow 

 Ironwood Road to H Street, Barstow 

 Grace Street, Barstow 

 Mount Vernon Avenue, Church of the Nazarene, Barstow 

 Sandalwood Court, Barstow 

 Western Whip Court to Mojave River, Barstow 

 Hacienda Lane, Barstow 

 Elephant Mountain Road, Yermo 

 Ghost Town Road, Oak Tree Inn, Yermo 

The Segment 2C Median alignment option would avoid impacts of the Segment 2C Side 

Running alignment option to the Victory Outreach Church on Grace Street and the Days 

Inn on Coolwater Lane in Barstow. No new areas of noise impact would occur. 

Under the EMU technology option, the Segment 2C Median alignment option would result 

in a greater amount of noise impacts than the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option 

as the rail alignment would be located slightly closer to the residential uses to the south of 

the I-15 freeway corridor. However, the Segment 2C Median alignment option would 

avoid severe noise impacts of the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option due to its 

placement within the I-15 freeway median near the residential areas within central 

Barstow. 

Under the DEMU technology option, the Segment 2C Median alignment option would 

result in fewer noise impacts and severe noise impacts as compared to the Segment 2C 

Side Running alignment option. 

Operational Period Vibration 

In terms of vibration, where near noise and vibration sensitive uses, the Segment 2C Side 

Running alignment would be constructed on an elevated structure. Under FRA criteria, 

the vibration criterion used for this assessment is 80 VdB, as the project operations would 

entail fewer than 70 train passbys per day. The use of elevated structures for the Segment 

2C Side Running alignment would result in a 10 VdB reduction in vibration levels due to 

the attenuation of vibration as it travels through the elevated structure to the ground. The 

resulting vibration levels with the train passbys on the Segment 2C Side Running 

alignment would range from 50 VdB to 74 VdB at residences in the project area. These 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-14 

vibration levels would not exceed the 80 VdB criterion and therefore not be considered 

significant. 

The Segment 2C Median alignment would be constructed on an elevated structure within 

the vicinity of noise- and vibration-sensitive uses. Because there would be less than 70 

train passbys per day, the vibration criterion used for this assessment is 80 VdB. The use 

of elevated structures for the Segment 2C Side Running alignment would result in a 10 

VdB reduction in vibration levels due to the attenuation of vibration as it travels through 

the elevated structure to the ground. The resulting vibration levels associated with the 

train passbys on the Segment 2C median alignment would range from 50 VdB to 69 VdB 

at the closest residences. These vibration levels would not exceed the 80 VdB criterion 

and therefore not be considered significant. 

Construction Effects 

Construction of Segment 2C would introduce temporary construction related noise and 

vibration to areas not previously evaluated. As documented in Section 3.12.6.1 of the 

Draft EIS, temporary noise during construction has the potential of being intrusive to 

sensitive receptors, such as residential developments, near the construction sites. Most of 

the construction would consist of site preparation and laying new track, and would only 

occur during daytime hours. 

Segment 2C would include one temporary construction area (TCA), which could also 

generate construction noise related to mechanical equipment during construction hours. 

The TCA would not, however, be located within the vicinity of any noise- or vibrationsensitive uses. Potential construction noise impacts will be further evaluated and 

mitigated during final project design. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during final 

design and included in the construction specifications for the project, and noise 

monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. 

Segment 4C 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

While Segment 4C would result in noise and vibration associated with passby of the highspeed train during operation, no sensitive receptors would be affected. There are no 

noise- or vibration-sensitive uses located within close proximity to the rail alignment. In 

the southern portion of Segment 4C, the rail alignment would traverse through 

undeveloped desert lands, with no noise- or vibration-sensitive uses. Within the vicinity 

of the northern portion of Segment 4C, there are several hotels immediately adjacent to 

the I-15 freeway corridor in Primm, however, the hotels would be more than 2,000 feet 

from the proposed rail alignment and would not be adversely affected by the operation of 

the high speed train. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-15 

Construction Effects 

Construction of Segment 4C would introduce temporary construction related noise and 

vibration to areas not previously evaluated. As documented in Section 3.12.6.1 of the 

Draft EIS, temporary noise during construction has the potential of being intrusive to 

sensitive receptors, such as residential developments, near the construction sites. Most of 

the construction would consist of site preparation and laying new track, and would only 

occur during daytime hours. 

Segment 4C would include five TCAs, which could also generate construction noise related 

to mechanical equipment during construction hours. The TCAs would not, however, be 

located within the vicinity of any noise- or vibration-sensitive uses. Segment 4C would 

also introduce construction noise related to tunneling, which could result in temporary 

construction noise and vibration effects. Potential construction noise impacts will be 

further evaluated and mitigated during final project design. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during final 

design and included in the construction specifications for the project, and noise 

monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

Operation of the RSMSF would introduce new noise and vibration sources associated with 

train activities and maintenance operations (i.e., mechanical equipment noise) within the 

vicinity of this facility. However, there are no noise- or vibration-sensitive receptors 

within 1,000 feet of this facility. Thus, no noise or vibration effects would occur from the 

operation of the RSMSF. 

Construction Effects 

Construction of the RSMSF would introduce temporary noise and vibration sources 

during construction activities. Since there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of 

the RSMSF, no construction noise or vibration effects would occur. 

Frias Substation 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

The substation would be constructed as an open facility and would not require the use of 

fans or ventilation units, which typically serve as a primary noise source for this type of 

facility. While there could be a minor humming noise associated with the operation of the 

substation, this noise would not result in an impact to the adjacent or nearby residential 

developments. Further, the traffic noise associated with the I-15 freeway immediately 

adjacent to the Frias Substation site would remain the dominant noise source. No adverse 

operational noise or vibration effects would occur. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-16 

Construction Effects 

Construction of the Frias Substation could result in temporary construction noise and 

vibration impacts to the adjacent residential developments. Construction noise associated 

with mechanical equipment, construction vehicles, and site preparation could introduce 

temporary noise and vibration beyond existing levels, which could temporarily affect the 

nearby noise- and vibration-sensitive residential developments. Potential construction 

noise impacts will be further evaluated and mitigated during final project design. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during final 

design and included in the construction specifications for the project, and noise 

monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. 

Segment 6A – Revised Draft EIS Evaluation 

This analysis updates the evaluation of noise and vibration effects of Segment 6A 

contained in Sections 3.12.6.1 and 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Operational Period Noise 

Tables S-3.12-8 and 3.12-9 provide a revised summary of the projected noise impacts 

for Segment 6A for the EMU and DEMU technology options, respectively. 

Saffredi Lane – There is a single-family residential development to the west of I-15 in this 

area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the residences to 

the proposed alignment and the higher noise levels generated by the DEMU vehicle. This 

impact is the same as presented for Segment 6A in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Deluna Street - There is a single-family residential development to the west of I-15 in this 

area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the residences to 

the proposed alignment and the higher noise levels generated by the DEMU vehicle. This 

impact is the same as presented for Segment 6A in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Wigwam Avenue to Blue Diamond Road, Las Vegas – There is a mobile home park to the 

east of I-15 in this area. The number of potential impacts at this location is an estimate 

based on aerial photography. The impacts are due to the high speeds and the elevated 

structure. 

Industrial Road, Silverton Casino Lodge, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Residence Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. Dean Martin Drive, Courtyard Hotel, Las Vegas – 

There is a motel on the west side of I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the 

proximity of the hotel to the proposed alignment and the elevated structure. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-17 

Table S-3.12-8 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6A - EMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist 

to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Wigwam Ave to Blue 

Diamond Rd NB 180-

500 66 61-67 61 66 67-69 1.4-3.5 352 55 

Industrial Road, 

Silverton Casino 

Lodge 

SB 500 66 62 61 66 67 1.4 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Residence Inn SB 385 66 62 61 66 67 1.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Courtyard Hotel SB 400 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 230 66 64 61 66 68 2.2 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Motel 6 SB 270 66 63 61 66 68 1.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Golden Palm Hotel SB 280 66 63 61 66 67 1.7 1 0 

Total 358 55 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-18 

Table S-3.12-9 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6A – DEMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist 

to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Saffredi Ln SB 150 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 5 0 

Deluna St SB 140 66 62 61 66 67 1.5 12 0 

Wigwam Ave to Blue 

Diamond Rd NB 180-500 66 62-68 61 66 67-70 1.6-4.2 242 165 

Industrial Road, 

Silverton Casino 

Lodge 

SB 500 66 63 61 66 67 1.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Residence Inn SB 385 66 63 61 66 68 2.0 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Courtyard Hotel SB 400 66 62 61 66 67 1.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 230 66 65 61 66 68 2.6 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Motel 6 SB 270 66 64 61 66 64 2.2 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Golden Palm Hotel SB 280 66 64 61 66 68 2.1 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Panorama Towers SB 300 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 3 0 

Total 268 165 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 

Dean Martin Drive, Fairfield Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Americana 5 Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Golden Palm Hotel, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Panorama Towers, Las Vegas – There is a group of high-rise 

condominiums to the west of I-15 in this area. The number of impacts shown is the 

number of buildings in the complex. A count of the number of residences was not 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-19 

possible. The noise impact at this location is due to the high speeds and the elevated 

structure. 

Segment 6A under the EMU technology option would result in 358 noise impacts and 55 

severe noise impacts while the DEMU technology option would result in 268 noise 

impacts and 165 severe noise impacts. 

Operational Period Vibration 

Consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS, there are no 

vibration impacts projected for Segment 6A due to the distance of the nearest vibrationsensitive uses and use of an elevated structure. The elevated structure would provide 

vibration attenuation prior to the vibration reaching the ground. 

Construction Effects 

There has been no change to the construction noise and vibration effects for Segment 6A 

as described in Section 3.12.6.1 of the Draft EIS. No revision to this evaluation is 

required. 

Segment 6B – Revised Draft EIS Evaluation 

This analysis updates the evaluation of noise and vibration effects of Segment 6B 

contained in Sections 3.12.6.1 and 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. A discussion of AAAs 7 

and 8 relative to Segment 6B are discussed under the heading “Alignment Adjustment 

Areas” below. 

Operational Period Noise 

Tables S-3.12-10 and 3.12-11 provide a revised summary of the projected noise impacts 

for Segment 6B for the EMU and DEMU technology options, respectively. 

Saffredi Lane – There is a single-family residential development to the west of I-15 in this 

area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the residences to 

the proposed alignment. This impact is the same as presented for Segment 6B in Section 

3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Deluna Street - There is a single-family residential development to the west of I-15 in this 

area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the residences to 

the proposed alignment. This impact is the same as presented for Segment 6B in Section 

3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Tremezzo Bay Street - There is a single-family residential development to the west of I-15 

in this area. The noise impacts at this location are due to the close proximity of the 

residences to the proposed alignment and the higher noise levels generated by the DEMU 

vehicle. This impact is the same as presented for Segment 6B under the DEMU option in 

Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Dean Martin Drive/West Ali Baba Lane - There a hotel located at the corner of this 

intersection. The noise impact at this location is due to the close proximity of the hotel to 

the proposed alignment and the higher noise levels generated by the DEMU vehicle. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-20 

Table S-3.12-10 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6B - EMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist 

to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Saffredi Ln SB 50-70 66 64-66 61 66 68-69 2.2-3.2 11 0 

Deluna St SB 40-60 66 65-67 61 66 68-70 2.6-4 11 12 

Wigwam Ave to Blue 

Diamond Rd NB 140-490 66 61-68 61 66 67-70 1.2-4.2 336 0 

Industrial Road, 

Silverton Casino 

Lodge 

SB 300 66 68 61 66 67 4.2 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr/W, 

Ali Baba Ln SB 210-

300 66 62-64 61 66 67-68 1.6-2.4 5 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Residence Inn SB 345 66 63 61 66 67 1.8 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Courtyard Hotel SB 360 66 62 61 66 67 1.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 130 66 63 61 66 68 1.8 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Motel 6 SB 170 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Golden Palm Hotel SB 180 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Panorama Towers SB 360 66 63 61 66 68 1.9 3 0 

Total 371 13 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-21 

Table S-3.12-11 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6B – DEMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist 

to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase 

in Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Saffredi Ln SB 50-70 66 66-68 61 66 69-70 3.3-4.6 0 11 

Deluna St SB 40-60 66 67-70 61 66 70-71 3.9-5.5 0 23 

Tremezzo Bay St SB 120 66 63 61 66 67 1.8 6 0 

Dean Martin Dr/W. 

Ali Baba Ln SB 210-

300 66 61-65 61 66 67-69 1.3-2.9 8 0 

Wigwam Ave to Blue 

Diamond Rd NB 140-

490 66 61-69 61 66 67-71 1.4-4.9 407 0 

Industrial Road, 

Silverton Casino 

Lodge 

SB 300 66 69 61 66 67 4.9 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Marriott SB 350 66 64 61 66 68 2.2 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Residence Inn SB 345 66 64 61 66 68 2.1 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Courtyard Hotel SB 360 66 64 61 66 68 2.1 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 130 66 69 61 66 70 4.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Motel 6 SB 170 66 64 61 66 68 2.2 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Golden Palm Hotel SB 180 66 64 61 66 68 2.1 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Panorama Towers SB 360 66 61 61 66 67 1.3 3 0 

Total 429 36 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 

Industrial Road, Silverton Casino Lodge, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Wigwam Avenue to Blue Diamond Road, Las Vegas – There is a mobile home park to the 

east of I-15 in this area. The number of potential impacts at this location is an estimate 

based on aerial photography. The impacts are due to the high speeds and the elevated 

structure. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-22 

Dean Martin Drive, Residence Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Courtyard Hotel, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Fairfield Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Americana 5 Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Golden Palm Hotel, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the elevated structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Panorama Towers, Las Vegas – There is a group of high-rise 

condominiums to the west of I-15 in this area. The number of impacts shown is the 

number of buildings in the complex. A count of the number of residences was not 

possible. The noise impact at this location is due to the high speeds and the elevated 

structure. 

Segment 6B under the EMU technology option would result in 371 noise impacts, and 13 

severe noise impact. Under the DEMU technology option, Segment 6B would result in 

429 noise impacts and 36 severe noise impacts. 

This revised analysis for Segment 6B will serve as the point of comparison when 

considering the noise effects associated with AAAs 7 and 8. 

Operational Period Vibration 

Consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS, there are no 

vibration impacts projected for Segment 6B due to the distance of the nearest vibrationsensitive uses and use of an elevated structure. The elevated structure would provide 

vibration attenuation prior to the vibration reaching the ground. 

Construction Effects 

There has been no change to the construction noise and vibration effects for Segment 6B 

as described in Section 3.12.6.1 of the Draft EIS. No revision to this evaluation is 

required. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

AAAs 1 through 7: The operational and construction noise and vibration effects 

Segments 2A/2B, 3B, and 6B as modified by AAAs 1 through 7 would be similar to those 

identified in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS, as no new noise environments would be 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-23 

crossed and would not locate the rail alignment closer to noise- or vibration sensitive uses. 

The noise and vibration effects associated with AAAs 1 through 7 are summarized below: 

 AAA 1 would shift a portion of Segment 2A/2B approximately 300 feet to the south 

and therefore farther away from the residential and commercial uses located in 

northern Barstow. 

 AAAs 2 through 6 would not be located within 1,000 feet of any noise- or 

vibration-sensitive land uses, such as residential developments. As such, the 

alignment adjustments would not result in any additional noise or vibration effects 

beyond what was documented in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS for Segment 

2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. 

 AAA 7 would shift a portion of Segment 6B approximately 200 feet to the west of 

the I-15 freeway corridor, and thus farther away from the residential developments 

on the eastern side of the I-15 freeway corridor. 

AAA 8: Appendix S-D provides the detailed noise and vibration evaluation for AAA 8. 

AAA 8 would shift portions of the Segment 6B rail alignment to the west of the I-15 

freeway corridor. Specifically between Hacienda Avenue and Tropicana Avenue, AAA 8 

would shift the rail alignment into the median of Dean Martin Drive/Industrial Road and 

approximately 80 feet closer to noise- and vibration-sensitive uses, such as residences and 

hotels. 

Tables S-3.12-12 and S-3.12-13 summarize the projected noise effects associated with 

operation of Segment 6B as modified by AAA 8 for the EMU and DEMU technology 

options, respectively. This evaluation considers the revised affected environment and 

environmental consequences identified for Segment 6B since publication of the Draft EIS. 

The noise effects associated with AAA 8 would be limited to areas west of the I-15 freeway 

near or along Dean Martin Drive. 

As shown in Appendix S-D, the plan and profile set for AAA 8 provide detailed 

information related to train speed based on refined engineering performed after 

publication of the Draft EIS. While the evaluation of Segment 6B in Section 3.12.6.2 of 

the Draft EIS assumed a maximum train speed of 150 mph for the entire rail alignment 

based on the most current information available at the time, the evaluation of Segment 6B 

as modified by AAA 8 considers the defined speeds along the rail alignment in this area. 

In many cases, the maximum train speed has been reduced, with a resultant reduction in 

projected noise levels associated with train passby for both the EMU and DEMU 

technology options. As such, there are fewer anticipated noise impacts identified for 

Segment 6B as modified by AAA 8 even though the rail alignment would be shifted to the 

west and thereby closer to existing noise- and vibration-sensitive uses. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-24 

Table S-3.12-12 Noise Impacts for Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8– EMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase in 

Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Saffredi Ln SB 50-70 66 64-66 61 66 68-69 2.2-3.2 11 0 

Deluna St SB 40-60 66 65-67 61 66 68-70 2.6-4 11 12 

Industrial Rd, 

Silverton Casino 

Lodge 

SB 80 66 66 61 66 69 3.0 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 55 66 67 61 66 70 4.0 0 1 

Total 23 13 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 

As the Segment 6B rail alignment would not be altered south of Wigwam Avenue, the 

noise impacts for Saffredi Lane, Deluna Street, and Tremezzo Bay Street are the same as 

identified for Segment 6B in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Industrial Road, Silverton Casino Lodge, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 

Wigwam Avenue to Blue Diamond Road, Las Vegas – There is a mobile home park to the 

east of I-15 in this area. The number of potential impacts at this location is an estimate 

based on aerial photography. The impacts are due to the high speeds and the aerial 

structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Residence Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Courtyard Hotel, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Fairfield Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I-15. 

The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Americana 5 Inn, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of I15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-25 

Table S-3.12-13 Noise Impacts for Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8 – DEMU 

Location Side 

of 

Track 

Dist to 

Near 

Track 

(feet) 

Exist. 

Noise 

Level1

Project Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Total 

Noise 

Level 

Increase in 

Noise 

Level1

Number of 

Impacts 

Pred.2 Impact 

Criteria 

Imp Sev Imp Sev 

Saffredi Ln SB 50-70 66 66-68 61 66 69-70 3.3-4.6 0 11 

Deluna St SB 40-60 66 67-70 61 66 70-71 3.9-5.5 0 23 

Tremezzo Bay St SB 120 66 63 61 66 67 1.8 6 0 

Wigwam Ave to 

Blue Diamond Rd NB 310-

460 66 61-63 61 66 67-68 1.2-1.8 209 0 

Industrial Road, 

Silverton Lodge 

Casino 

SB 80 66 70 61 66 71 5.8 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Residence Inn SB 265 66 63 61 66 68 2.0 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Courtyard Hotel SB 300 66 63 61 66 67 1.8 1 0 

Dean Martin 

Drive, Fairfield 

Inn 

SB 350 66 62 61 66 67 1.6 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Americana 5 Inn SB 55 66 72 61 66 73 7.2 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Motel 6 SB 105 66 65 61 66 68 2.7 1 0 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Golden Palm 

Hotel 

SB 80 66 67 61 66 69 3.5 0 1 

Dean Martin Dr, 

Panorama 

Towers 

SB 300 66 63 61 66 68 2.0 3 0 

Total 303 37 

Source: HMMH, 2010. Pred – Predicted Noise Levels, Imp – Impact, Sev – Severe Impact. 

Notes: 1. Noise levels are based on Ldn and are measured in dBA. Noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel except 

for the increase in noise level, which is given to the nearest one-tenth decibel to provide a better resolution for assessing 

noise impact. 2. The reported noise levels represent the range of projected noise levels for each location. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-26 

Dean Martin Drive, Golden Palm Hotel, Las Vegas – There is a motel on the west side of 

I-15. The noise impact at this location is due to the proximity of the hotel to the proposed 

alignment and the aerial structure. 

Dean Martin Drive, Panorama Towers, Las Vegas – There is a group of high-rise 

condominiums to the west of I-15 in this area. The number of impacts shown is the 

number of buildings in the complex. A count of the number of residences was not 

possible. The noise impact at this location is due to the high speeds and the aerial 

structure. 

Segment 6B as modified by AAA 8 would be constructed on an elevated structure. 

Because there would be less than 70 train passbys per day, the vibration criterion used for 

this assessment is 80 VdB. The use of elevated structures for the Segment 6B rail 

alignment would result in a 10 VdB reduction in vibration levels due to the attenuation of 

vibration as it travels through the elevated structure to the ground. The resulting 

vibration levels associated with the train passbys on Segment 6B with implementation of 

AAA 8 would range from 50 VdB to 67 VdB at the closest residences. These vibration 

levels would not exceed the 80 VdB criterion and therefore not considered significant. 

Construction Effects 

Construction of the AAAs would result in similar noise and vibration effects as identified 

in Section 3.12.6.1 of the Draft EIS for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. 

With implementation of AAA 8, temporary construction noise sources would be shifted 

slightly closer to sensitive receptors to the west of the I-15 freeway. Potential construction 

noise impacts will be further evaluated and mitigated during final project design. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during final 

design and included in the construction specifications for the project, and noise 

monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

There has been no change in the location of the Wigwam MSF since publication of the 

Draft EIS. While the Wigwam MSF would be modified to allow for the trackway 

connection from the south rather than the north, the Wigwam MSF would continue to 

have the same maintenance activities, and thus similar noise and vibration sources, as 

considered in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. Placement of the trackway on the south 

side of the Wigwam MSF would, however, shift the rail alignment slightly closer to the 

residential developments west of Dean Martin Drive. Trains at this location would be 

traveling at low speeds of approximately 35 miles per hour (mph) when entering the 

Wigwam MSF, which would reduce the noise and vibration associated with train passby as 

compared to the high-speed trains traveling at full speed (125 mph to 150 mph). Section 

3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS concluded that no adverse noise or vibration effects would occur 

within the vicinity of the Wigwam MSF. 

 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-27 

Construction Effects 

Since there has been to change in the location of the Wigwam MSF since publication of the 

Draft EIS, the same construction noise and vibration effects as described in Section 

3.12.6.1 of the Draft EIS would occur. Construction of the Wigwam MSF modification 

would have the potential to introduce temporary increases in noise related to the 

construction activities and equipment. Potential construction noise impacts will be 

further evaluated and mitigated during final project design. 

Construction activities would be carried out in compliance with all applicable local noise 

regulations. Specific residential property line noise limits will be developed during final 

design and included in the construction specifications for the project, and noise 

monitoring will be performed during construction to verify compliance with the limits. 

Profile Modification 

Operational Period Noise and Vibration 

The Profile Modification would not change the lateral location of the Segment 3B and the 

noise generated by the high-speed trains at this location would be comparable to what was 

evaluated for Segment 3B in Section 3.12.6.2 of the Draft EIS. At this location, the noise 

generated by the high-speed train passby would be comparable to that of a semi-truck 

traveling at full speed on the existing I-15 freeway. However, as the profile modification 

would be within a retained cut approximately 6 to 8 feet below grade, the walls lining the 

rail alignment would help to absorb some of the existing and project generated noise. The 

profile modification would have the potential to reduce noise associated with train passbys 

for this portion of Segment 3B. Regardless, there are no noise- or vibration-sensitive uses 

or users located within the vicinity of the Segment 3B Profile Modification. No adverse 

effects would thus occur. 

Construction Effects 

Construction of the profile modification would introduce temporary noise and vibration 

sources during construction activities. Since there are no sensitive receptors within 1,000 

feet of the profile modification, no construction noise or vibration effects would occur. 

3.12.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The same types of mitigation measures identified in Sections 3.12.7.1, 3.12.7.2, and 

3.12.7.3 of the Draft EIS would be applied to the project modifications and additions to 

address potential operational and construction noise and vibration effects. 

Noise 

Potential mitigation measures for reducing noise effects from high-speed rail operations 

identified in Section 3.12.7.1 of the Draft EIS are summarized below: 

 Noise Barriers – The primary requirements for an effective noise barrier are that 1) 

the barrier must be high enough and long enough to break the line-of-sight 

between the sound source and receiver, 2) the barrier must be of an impervious 

material with maximum surface density of 4 pounds per square foot, and 3) the 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-28 

barrier must not have any gaps or holes between the panels or at the bottom. 

 Relocation of Crossovers or Special Trackwork at Crossovers – Relocate track 

crossovers away from residential areas or use spring-rail or moveable point frogs 

in place of standard rigid frogs at rail turnouts. 

 Building Sound Insulation – Where the rail alignment would be located at-grade 

and where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature, sound 

insulation to improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction could be considered 

in lieu of a noise barrier. Substantial improvements in building sound insulation 

(5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer of glazing to windows, 

sealing holes in exterior surfaces, and providing forced ventilation and airconditioning so windows need not be opened. 

 Property Acquisitions or Easements – Where the rail alignment would be located 

at-grade and where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature, 

property acquisitions or easements could be considered in lieu of a noise barrier. 

The Applicant could purchase properties likely to be impacted by train operations 

or could acquire easements for residences by paying homeowners to accept future 

train noise conditions. 

Tables S-3.12-14 and S-3.12-15 show the noise mitigation locations for the Segment 2C 

alignment options. Figure S-3.12-3 shows the general locations of the identified noise 

mitigation for the Segment 2C alignment options. 

Tables S-3.12-16 and S-3.12-17 shows the updated noise mitigation locations for the 

Segment 6 rail alignments as revised from Section 3.12.7.1 of the Draft EIS. Figure S3.12-4 shows the general locations of the identified noise mitigation for Segment 6 as 

revised from Section 3.12.7.1 of the Draft EIS. 

Table S-3.12-12 shows the noise mitigation locations for AAA 8. Figure S-3.12-5

shows the general locations of the identified noise mitigation for AAA 8. 

The tables identify where noise barriers would be effective to reduce noise associated with 

high-speed rail operations based on FRA noise criteria. These noise mitigation locations 

should be taken in combination with the noise mitigation locations identified in Section 

3.12.7.1 in the Draft EIS, which identify mitigation locations for all project features 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

For the Segment 2C alignment options, Segment 6, and Segment 6B with implementation 

of AAA 8, the noise barriers could be at the wayside or on the elevated structure. If 

feasible, the most effective location for the noise barriers would be on the elevated 

structure. It is assumed that a 4-foot barrier constructed on the elevated structure would 

be sufficient to reduce noise impacts and severe noise impacts associated with the 

Segment 2C alignment options, Segment 6, and Segment 6B with implementation of AAA 

8. 

However, where the rail alignment would be at-grade, noise barriers should be located on 

the wayside of the rail alignment where feasible. In areas where the noise-sensitive uses 

are not concentrated within a single area, such as the scattered residential uses along 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-29 

Segment 2C, implementation of sound insulation or property acquisitions/easements may 

be required to mitigate these noise impacts. 

Vibration 

There are several approaches to reduce ground-borne vibration from high-speed rail 

operations as identified in Section 3.12.7.2 of the Draft EIS. No significant vibration 

effects were found for the project modifications and additions and no additional 

mitigation would be required. 

Construction 

The relevant construction period noise control measures from Section 3.12.7.3 of the 

Draft EIS are also summarized below. These construction mitigation measures would be 

applied to the construction of the new project features and modifications. 

 Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods. 

 Using specially quieted equipment with enclosed engines and/or highperformance mufflers. 

 Locating stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive 

sites. 

 Constructing noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, 

between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. 

 Re-routing construction-related truck traffic along roadway that will cause the 

least disturbance to residents. 

 Avoiding impact pile driving near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. If impact 

pile drivers must be used, their use will be limited to the period between 8:00 AM 

and 5:00 PM on weekdays only. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-30 

Table S-3.12-14 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 2C Side Running 

Location Technology 

Option 

Side of Track Civil Station Length (ft) 

Lenwood Road EMU NB 1557 – 1563 600 

Lenwood Road EMU SB 1580 – 1587 700 

L Street to H Street EMU SB 1735 – 1743 800 

Grace Street EMU SB 1791 – 1821 3,000 

Coolwater Lane EMU SB 1882 – 1892 1,000 

Western Whip Court to 

Kelly Drive 

EMU SB 1842 – 1886 4,400 

Elephant Mountain Road EMU SB 2225 – 2235 1,000 

Ghost Town Road EMU NB 2245 – 2255 1,000 

Total 12,500 

Lenwood Road DEMU NB 1557 – 1563 600 

Lenwood Road DEMU SB 1580 – 1587 700 

Ironwood Road to L Street DEMU NB 1690 – 1713 2,300 

L Street to H Street DEMU SB 1732 – 1743 1,100 

Grace Street DEMU SB 1791 – 1822 3,100 

Sandalwood Court DEMU NB 1824 – 1842 1,800 

Coolwater Lane DEMU SB 1882 – 1892 1,000 

Western Whip Court to 

Kelly Drive 

DEMU SB 1838 – 1886 4,800 

Center Lane to Mojave 

River 

DEMU NB 1888 – 1891 300 

Hacienda Lane DEMU NB 1945 – 1955 1,000 

Elephant Mountain Road DEMU SB 2225 – 2235 1,000 

Ghost Town Road DEMU NB 2245 – 2255 1,000 

Total 18,700 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-31 

Table S-3.12-15 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 2C Median 

Location Technology 

Option 

Side of Track Civil Station Length (ft) 

Lenwood Road EMU NB 1557 – 1563 600 

Lenwood Road EMU SB 1580 – 1587 700 

L Street to H Street EMU SB 1735 – 1743 800 

Grace Street EMU SB 1791 – 1812 2,100 

Sandalwood Court EMU NB 1824 – 1842 1,800 

Western Whip Court to 

Kelly Drive 

EMU SB 1842 – 1886 4,400 

Center Lane to Mojave 

River 

EMU NB 1888 – 1891 300 

Elephant Mountain Road EMU SB 2225 – 2235 1,000 

Ghost Town Road EMU NB 2245 – 2255 1,000 

Total 12,700 

Lenwood Road DEMU NB 1557 – 1563 600 

Lenwood Road DEMU SB 1580 – 1587 700 

Ironwood Road to L Street DEMU NB 1690 – 1713 2,300 

L Street to H Street DEMU SB 1732 – 1743 1,100 

Grace Street DEMU SB 1791 – 1821 3,000 

Sandalwood Court DEMU NB 1822 – 1844 2,300 

Western Whip Court to 

Kelly Drive 

DEMU SB 1842 – 1886 4,400 

Center Lane to Mojave 

River 

DEMU NB 1887 – 1892 500 

Hacienda Lane DEMU NB 1945 – 1955 1,000 

Elephant Mountain Road DEMU SB 2225 – 2235 1,000 

Ghost Town Road DEMU NB 2245 – 2255 1,000 

Total 17,900 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-32 

Table S-3.12-16 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6 – Revised Draft EIS 

Analysis 

Location Segment Technology 

Option 

Side of 

Track 

Civil Station Length (ft) 

Saffredi Ln/Deluna St 6B EMU SB 9469 – 9531 6,200 

South of Blue Diamond 

Rd 

6A/6B EMU NB 9697-9732 3,500 

South of W Russell Rd 6A/6B EMU SB 9872 – 9888 1,600 

South of W Tropicana 

Ave 

6A/6B EMU SB 9926 – 9942 1,600 

Harmon Ave 6A/6B EMU SB 9957 – 9975 1,800 

Total 6A: 8,500 

6B: 14,700 

Saffredi Ln/Deluna St 6A DEMU SB 9469 – 9531 6,200 

Saffredi Ln/Deluna 

St/Tremezzo Bay St 6B DEMU SB 9469 – 9548 7,900 

South of Blue Diamond 

Rd 6A/6B DEMU NB 9697-9732 3,500 

Dean Martin Dr 6B DEMU SB 9790-9810 1,500 

South of W Russell Rd 6A/6B DEMU SB 9872 – 9888 1,600 

South of W Tropicana 

Ave 6A/6B DEMU SB 9926 – 9942 1,600 

Harmon Ave 6A/6B DEMU SB 9957 – 9975 1,800 

Total 6A: 14,700 

6B: 16,400 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.12 Noise and Vibration 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS

3.12-33 

Table S-3.12-17 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8 

Location Technology 

Option 

Side of Track Civil Station Length (ft) 

Saffredi Ln/Deluna St EMU SB 9469 – 9531 6,200 

South of Blue Diamond Rd EMU SB 9715 – 9732 1,700 

South of W Tropicana Ave EMU SB 9926 – 9934 800 

Total 8,700 

Saffredi Ln/Deluna 

St/Tremezzo Bay St 

DEMU SB 9469 – 9548 7,900 

South of Blue Diamond Rd DEMU SB 9715 – 9732 1,700 

South of Blue Diamond Rd DEMU NB 9702 – 9732 3,000 

South of W Russell Rd DEMU SB 9872 – 9888 1,600 

South of W Tropicana Ave DEMU SB 9926 – 9942 1,600 

Harmon Ave DEMU SB 9957 – 9975 1,800 

Total 17,600 

Source: HMMH, 2010. 

3.12.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The noise impacts associated with the Segment 2C alignment options where the rail 

alignment would be elevated through Barstow would be fully mitigated with 

implementation of the 4-foot noise barriers on the elevated structure at the specified 

lengths in Tables S-3.12-14 and S-3.12-15. The noise impacts associated with the 

elevated portions of Segment 6A, Segment 6B, and Segment 6B as modified by AAA 8 

would also be fully mitigated with implementation of 4-foot noise barriers on the elevated 

structure at the specific lengths in Table S-3.12-16 and S-3.12-17. 

In areas where the rail alignment would be located at-grade, at-grade noise barriers would 

fully mitigate noise impacts and severe noise impacts associated with operation of the 

project. Where sensitive receptors would be dispersed or limited in nature (i.e. one 

residence in generally undeveloped area), sound insulation or property 

acquisitions/easements could be considered in lieu of construction of a noise barrier. 

Overall, implementation of the noise mitigation would fully mitigate noise impacts and 

severe noise impacts associated with operation of the project modifications and additions 

and no residual effects would remain. 

As no adverse vibration effects would occur with the project modifications and additions, 

no residual vibration effects would remain. 

 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment,

which would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Segment 2C

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Segment 1

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2A

Segment 3 A

Segment 3 B

LT-S2 Segment 2B

LT-S1

LT-5

0 3 1.5

Miles

Locator Map

Legend

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.17.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Noise Measurements

Measurement Location

# Monitoring Site ID

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Noise Measurement Locations, Segment 2C

FIGS-3.12-1
Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Frias

Substation

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

LT-7

0 3 1.5

Miles

Locator Map

Legend

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Noise Measurements

Measurement Location

# Monitoring Site ID

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Noise Measurement Locations, AAA 8

FIG

S-3.12-2
FIGS-3.12-3

Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

DesertXpress -

Supplemental EIS Noise Mitigation

Locations, Segment 2C

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Alignment Adjustment Area 2

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Noise Mitigation

Locations
FIGS-3.12-4

Geografika Consulting

Segment

6C

S

e

g

m

ent 6

B

S

e

g

m

ent 6A

06.17.10

DesertXpress -

Supplemental EIS Noise Mitigation Locations,

Segment 6 (Revised Draft EIS Evaluation)

Noise Mitigation

Locations
Segment

6C

S

e

g

m

ent 6

B

S

e

g

m

ent 6A

FIGS-3.12-5

Geografika Consulting 06.17.10

DesertXpress -

Supplemental EIS Noise Mitigation Locations,

Segment 6B with AAA 8

Noise Mitigation

Locations

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-1 

3.13 ENERGY 

This section analyzes the potential impact of the project modifications and additions on 

energy resources, both on an overall energy budget basis, as well as, on an electricity 

resources basis. 

3.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to Energy identified in Section 3.13.1 of the Draft EIS 

have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and therefore remain applicable to the 

project modifications and additions. 

Section 3.13.3 of the Draft EIS set forth the parameters for considering the energy 

resources in the affected environment. The geographies examined included the state level, 

and transportation energy used within the I-15 freeway corridor in California and Nevada. 

The project modifications and additions are appropriately examined within these same 

geographic regions. Since publication of the Draft EIS, new background information has 

become available for these geographies to supplement information provided in the Draft 

EIS on the affected environment. 

Regional Conditions 

Total Energy Consumption 

California remains second among all U.S. states in total energy consumption. On a per 

capita basis, California’s energy usage remains ranked at 49th among all 50 states. 1 2 Of all 

energy consumed in California, the transportation sector continues to represent the 

largest portion (40 percent), followed by the industrial, commercial and residential sectors 

(23 percent, 19 percent, and 18 percent, respectively).3

Nevada’s total energy consumption is now 37th in the United States in terms of overall 

energy consumption,4 and 36th on a per-capita basis.5 Thirty three percent of Nevada’s 

energy consumption is spent on transportation, followed by the industrial, residential, and 

commercial sectors, at 26 percent, 24 percent, and 17 percent, respectively.6

 

1 USDOE, 2005a. << http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. accessed May 26, 

2010>> 

2 USDOE, 2005b. << http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. accessed May 26, 

2010>> 

3 Calculated from USDOE, 2005a. << http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=CA. 

accessed May 26, 2010>> 

4 USDOE 2005a 

5 USDOE 2005b 

6 Calculated from USDOE 2005a 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-2 

Transportation Energy Consumption 

Since publication of the Draft EIS, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has revised its 

forecasts for on-road miles traveled in the state. 

CEC now estimates that on-road mileage will increase by 53 percent between 2005 and 

2030—from 332 billion to 507 billion.7 Notwithstanding this large increase, the CEC 

predicts that in-state road transportation fuel gasoline usage is anticipated to drop 

between 2007 and 2030 from 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline to 13.4 billion gallons (367 

million to 319 million barrels of oil) per year, as a result of the introduction of more fuelefficient cars, fleet hybridization, and the increased use of diesel and alternative fuel 

vehicles.8 

There has been no change to projected fuel usage for the state of Nevada. In-state Nevada 

gasoline fuel usage remains much smaller, presently estimated to be just more than 1 

billion gallons (25 million barrels of oil-equivalent). 9 

There is no more recent data available than 2007 for automobile transportation on the I15 freeway within the limits of the project study area. During year 2007, this area saw 3.67 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which in turn required 177,441,000 gallons of gasoline, 

equivalent to 3.7 million barrels of oil. 

Electricity Demand 

The California portion of the project remains within service area of Southern California 

Edison (SCE), a large publicly-owned utility (POU) that served more than 13 million 

people at a peak demand of 21,786 MW in 2009. 10 11 

The Nevada portion of the project remains within the service area of Nevada Energy, also 

a POU, which served 2.4 million customers at a peak load of 5,586 MW in 2009. 12 13 

 

7 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2007. Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated 

Energy Policy Report, Final Staff Report. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-

009/CEC-600-2007-009-SF.PDF. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

8 CEC 2010 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2010. Transportation Energy Forecasts and Analyses for the 2009 

Integrated Energy Policy Report, Final Staff Report. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC600-2010-002/CEC-600-2010-002-SF.PDF. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

9 Calculated based on Nevada per-capita gasoline production from data from U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (USDOE 2008e) and Nevada’s 2006 population count (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000) 

10 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2010. Southern California Edison. Available: 

http://www.sce.com/AboutSCE/CompanyOverview/. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

11 Southern California Edison (SCE). 2009. Southern California Edison, Power Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 11 

November/December 2009. Available: http://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/28CD1A3E-113F-4CE6-8ABAA36A3353E9B8/0/091202_200911_Government.pdf. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

12 NV Energy. 2010. About Us. Available: http://www.nvenergy.com/company/. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

13 NV Energy. 2009. Nevada Power Company’s Triennial Integrated Resource Plan for 2010-2029, Docket 

No. 09-07003. Volume 4 of 6, Technical Appendix. Available: 

http://www.nvenergy.com/company/rates/filings/images/vol4espta1-16.pdf. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-3 

Because the project would cross service area boundaries in addition to state borders, it 

remains most fitting to analyze anticipated energy of the project in relation to total 

existing and forecasted regional electricity generating capacity, rather than to restrict the 

analysis to the specific utility generating resources themselves. 

The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) has been updated since publication of the 

Draft EIS to extend through 2030. The NEMS is a computer-based, energy-economy 

modeling system of U.S. energy markets. NEMS balances energy supply and demand, 

accounting for economic competition among the various energy fuels and sources. 

In order to represent regional differences in energy markets, the component modules of 

NEMS function at the regional level. For electricity, the component modules are the 

regions and subregions used by the North American Electric Reliability Council. Figure 3-

13.1 of the Draft EIS illustrates these regions, called Electricity Market Modular (EMM) 

Regions: Southern Nevada is part of Region 12 (Rocky Mountain Power area, Arizona, 

New Mexico and Southern Nevada (RMPA-NMSN), and California is a region unto itself 

(Region 13). 

Table S-3.13-1 provides updated electricity supply and demand data and projections for 

selected years regarding EMM Regions 12 and 13. The data continue to show a steady 

increase in anticipated demand for the respective regions through 2030. 

Table S-3.13-1 EMM Regional Data and Projections, Regions 12 and 13 

Total Capacity (GW)a 2009 2010 2013 2020 2030 

Region 12 53.86 55.56 59.16 59.88 69.87 

Region 13 67.69 72.24 84.04 84.16 91.34 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Energy Information Administration. 2009. Annual Energy Outlook 2010: 

Supplemental Tables (Table 87). Available: < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/>. Accessed: May 26, 2010. 

Washington, D.C. 

a

 Total capacity is expressed in gigawatts (one billion watts) and is related to Net summer capacity. Net summer capacity is 

the steady hourly output that generating equipment is expected to supply to system load as demonstrated by tests during 

summer peak load. Includes small power producers and exempt wholesale generators. 

3.13.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The evaluation of energy supply and demand compares potential energy consumption of 

the action alternatives and the No Action, which are described below. 

Primary energy consideration is the energy required for train propulsion, which is based 

upon energy consumption factors for fossil fuels and electricity. 

Energy consumption factors have been updated since publication of the Draft EIS, as the 

US Department of Energy has published a new edition of its Transportation Energy Data 

Book. Table S-3.13-2 reflects a slightly increased consumption factor for passenger 

vehicles consistent with the updated Transportation Energy Data Book. No other 

 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-4 

consumption factors have been updated, and thus remain as presented in the Draft EIS. 

The analysis of train propulsion energy focuses on two analytical methods of energy 

consumption. The first is the overall energy consumption differences between the No 

Action Alternative and the project, considering the sum of fossil fuel consumption and 

electricity. The analysis identifies if the project would consume more or less energy, 

regardless of the source, compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Table S-3.13-2 Operational Energy Consumption Factors 

Mode Factorc

Passenger vehiclesa 5,517 BTUs/VMT 

DEMUb 408,779 BTUs/TMT 

EMUb 569,163 BTUs/TMT 

Source: ICF International, 2010. 

BTUs = British thermal units. 

TMT = Train-mile traveled. 

a

 U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), Energy Information Administration. 2009. Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 28. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 

Ridge, TN. 

b

 The values in this table are on a per-train-mile basis, converted from the annual energy consumption values that 

this source provided using the planned mileage in the planned operating schedule. The values were also adjusted to 

reflect the planned 2030 operating schedule (from the planned 2027 operating schedule, as provided by the source 

(DesertXpress 2007). 

c

 The conversion from diesel fuel consumption to heat content (BTUs) is 130,500 BTUs/gallon 

(bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html). The conversion from electricity consumption (kWh) to heat 

content (BTU) for EMU is 10,812 BTUs/ kWh, accounts for generation, transmission and distribution losses. 

Calculated from generation loss factor of 9,919 BTUs/kWh for petroleum generation and a T&D loss factor of 1.07 

(USDOE 2008c). 

Section 3.13.4 of the Draft EIS analysis focused on the relationship between projected 

VMT and the intensity of energy use by each passenger transportation mode in order to 

estimate the magnitude and direction of the potential change in total energy consumption 

between the No Action Alternative and the action alternatives with DEMU and EMU 

technology. 

The second energy use analysis focuses specifically on electricity consumption by the EMU 

option, as this technology option would use electricity to propel the train. Electricity 

consumption gets special attention because it is not storable. The estimated EMU energy 

demand was compared to estimates of supply capacity within the relevant North American 

Electric Reliability Council Regions, which in this case are the 1) Rocky Mountain Power 

area, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern Nevada region and 2) the California region. 

Whereas other sections in the Draft EIS discuss environmental consequences on a 

segment-by-segment basis, energy is evaluated in terms of operating the system as a 

whole, insofar as individual segments/components do not significantly influence the total 

anticipated energy usage of the project as a whole. Therefore, the environmental 

consequences and mitigation measures are discussed on a project-wide basis. 

This Supplemental Draft EIS qualitatively evaluates if and how project modifications and 

additions would affects total energy use. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-5 

Energy is also required to construct the railroad tracks, stations, and maintenance 

facilities. Table S-3.13-3 shows the construction-related energy factors associated with 

the project. These factors have been updated since publication of the Draft EIS to include 

a factor for railway tunnel construction. This Supplemental DEIS section uses these 

factors to calculate construction-related energy, based on the number of track miles atgrade, above-grade (elevated), and in a tunnel, in addition to the number of stations. 

This Supplemental EIS evaluates how project modifications and additions do or do not 

result in a change in system-wide energy use. 

Table S-3.13-3 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors 

Type of Facility 

Rural Compared 

to Urbang Factor (billions of BTUs) 

Highway - At grade Rurala 17.07/one-way lane mi 

Urbanb 26.28/one-way lane mi 

Highway - Elevated Rurala 130.38/one-way lane mi 

Urbanb 327.31/one-way lane mi 

Railway - At grade Ruralc 12.29/one-way trackway mile 

Urband 19.11/one-way trackway mile 

Railway - Elevated Ruralc 55.46/one-way trackway mile 

Urband 55.63/one-way trackway mile 

Railway - Tunnel NAd 99.51/one-way trackway mile 

Railway - Station NAe 78f/station 

Source: U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; and California State Department of 

Transportation 1983. 

a

 Estimates reflect average roadway construction energy consumption. 

b Estimates reflect range maximum for roadway construction energy consumption. 

c

 Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. 

d Estimates reflect energy consumption for BART system construction as surrogate for DesertXpress construction through 

urban area. 

e

 Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because the data used to 

develop the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference between the actual values might be 

expected. 

f

 Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for DesertXpress station consumption factors. 

g Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural settings reflect differences in 

construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc. 

Energy Payback 

The energy payback period measures the number of years that would be required to pay 

back the energy used in construction with operational energy consumption savings. The 

payback period is calculated by dividing the estimate of construction energy by the 

amount of energy that would later be saved by the action alternatives compared to the No 

Action Alternative condition. It is assumed that the amount of energy saved in the study 

year (2030) would remain constant throughout the payback period. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-6 

3.13.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions per the criteria for potential 

operational and construction effects. 14

Common Effects to All Project Modifications and Additions 

Overall Operational Energy Consumption 

The Draft EIS established that implementation of the project with either of the proposed 

technology options (DEMU or EMU) would result in lower operational energy 

consumption when compared to future conditions without the railway (the No Action 

Alternative). This change is associated with a shift from automobile usage relative to train 

usage. The proposed project modifications and additions do not alter this conclusion for 

the project as a whole. The shift is expected to result in a reduction in annual automobile 

travel on I-15. This reduction is expected to range between 733 million and 931 million 

VMT for the DEMU and EMU technologies, respectively. Although the train would 

require energy to operate, the reduction in automobile VMT would reduce gasoline use, 

and thus result in a net decrease in energy consumption. 

Peak-Period Electricity Demand 

The proposed project modifications and additions would not change the electricity 

demands of the EMU technology (see the Draft EIS, Section 3.13, Energy). 

Victorville Station Site 3, Segment 2C, and Segment 4C 

Operational Effects 

Several of the project modifications and additions would influence energy usage. VV3, 

Segment 2C, and Segment 4C would each individually modify the total length of the 

proposed rail alignment, thus influencing the total amount of energy required to power 

the system. 

Table S-3.13-4 shows the energy consumption of the project as a whole, adjusted for the 

inclusion of VV3, Segment 2C and Segment 4C. 

As shown in Table S-3.13-4, the project as modified by VV3, 2C, and 4C would continue 

to result in a reduction in energy usage (expressed in barrels of oil) compared to the No 

Action Alternative. Specifically, in 2030, the EMU technology option would result in an 

energy savings of 445,000 barrels of oil per year. The DEMU would result in an energy 

savings of 196,200 barrels of oil per year. 

 

14 The Draft EIS characterized construction related impacts to energy as “indirect.” This was an error. In this 

Supplemental Draft EIS, such impacts are properly noted as direct, temporary construction impacts.“ 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 Supplemen

3.13-7 

Table S-3.13-4 Annual Overall Operational Energy Consumption 

 2007 2030 

Existing No Action 

Alternative 

Project: DEMU with the variant considered in the DEIS a

Project: EMU with the variant considered in the DEIS a

Project: DEMwith VV3, 2C 4C 

Annual Auto VMT in Study Area (billions of miles)b 3.67 7.44 6.70 6.51 6.72 

Estimated Project VMT (millions of miles)c NA NA 7.33 5.12 7.05 Annual Auto Energy Consumptiond (MMBTUs) 20,260,000 41,030,000 37,000,000 35,900,000 37.090.000 With Project Energy Consumption d (MMBTUs) 0 0 2,995,000 2,691,000 2,880,000 TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (MMBTUs) 20,260,000 41,030,000 39,981,000 38,588,000 39,966,000 Change in Total Energy from Existing (MMBTUs) NA 20,775,000 19,724,000 18,331,000 19,709,000 Change in Total Energy from No Action (MMBTUs) NA NA -1,051,000 -2,444,000 -1,066,300 TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (Barrels of Oile) 3,729,200 7,553,700 7,360,300 7,103,800 7,358,100 Change in Total Energy from Existing (Barrels of Oile) NA 3,824,500 3,631,100 3,374,600 3,628,300 Change in Total Energy from No Action (Barrels of Oile) 

NA NA 

-193,400 -449,900 -196,200 

Source: ICF, 2010. a This is based on an action alternative with VV2, Segment 1B, Segment 2A, Segment 3B, Segment 4A, Segment 5B, Segment 6B, and Central Statib DMJM 2008. c DesertXpress 2007 and 2008. d Calculated using the operational energy consumption factors from Table S-3.13-2 which have been updated since publication of the Draft EIS.

e One barrel of crude oil is equal to 5.8 MMBTUs. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-8 

Construction Effects 

Project modifications and additions that would affect energy consumption are VV3, 

Segment 2C and Segment 4C, insofar as they affect overall alignment length and thus 

energy required to construct. 

Table S-3.13-5 shows the construction energy consumption of the project as a whole, 

accounting for the inclusion of VV3, Segment 2C, and Segment 4C. 

Construction of the project, with or without the project modifications and additions, 

would require the commitment of energy resources. Table S-3.13-5 shows the level of 

construction energy differs between the project as evaluated in the Draft EIS and the 

project as altered by the modifications and additions considered in this Supplemental EIS. 

However, the data shows that energy consumption with the proposed project 

modifications and additions would not be substantially different and in most cases slightly 

lower than the project as analyzed in the Draft EIS. The decrease in construction energy 

consumption is closely linked to the overall shorter track mileage associated with the VV3 

and Segment 2C project modifications/additions. 

Although energy would be required for construction that energy spent would be made up 

by energy saved during operations in approximately 2 to 5 years. Table S-3.13-5 shows 

the anticipated energy payback periods under each technology option. 

Table S-3.13-5 Construction Energy Consumption 

Alternative Facility Quantity (trackway 

miles & number of stations) 

Energy Consumption 

(MMBTUS; rounded) 

Payback Period 

(years) 

DEMU EMU 

Project as Evaluated in DEISa

At-Grade Rural 120 1,470,936 

Above Grade Rural 55 3,025,616 

Above Grade Urban 9 487,289 

Stations 2 156,000 

TOTAL 5,139,841 5.1 2.2 

Project w/VV3 

At-Grade Rural 116 1,431,343 

Above Grade Rural 53 2,954,716 

Above Grade Urban 9 487,289 

Stations 2 156,000 

TOTAL 5,029,348 5.2 2.2 

Project w/2C & 4C 

At-Grade Rural 121 1,490,512 

Above Grade Rural 47 2,628,048 

Above Grade Urban 11 630,579 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-9 

Alternative Facility Quantity (trackway 

miles & number of stations) 

Energy Consumption 

(MMBTUS; rounded) 

Payback Period 

(years) 

DEMU EMU 

Tunnel 2.3 228,873 

Stations 2 156,000 

TOTAL 5,134,011 4.9 2.2 

Project w/VV3, 2C, & 4C 

At-Grade Rural 119 1,457,063 

Above Grade Rural 46 2,557,147 

Above Grade Urban 11 630,579 

Tunnel 2.3 228,873 

Stations 2 156,000 

TOTAL 5,029,662 4.9 2.2 

Source: ICF International, 2010. 

a

 This is based on an action alternative with VV2, Segment 1B, Segment 2A, Segment 3B, Segment 4A, Segment 5B, 

Segment 6B, and Central Station B. 

OMSF 2, Relocated Sloan MSF, Frias Substation, Alignment Adjustment 

Areas, Wigwam MSF Modification, and Profile Modification 

Operational Effects 

None of the other project modifications and additions, including the OMSF 2, RSMSF, 

Frias Substation, Alignment Adjustment Areas, Wigwam MSF Modification, and Profile 

Modification would influence energy consumption because they would not substantially 

modify the length of the proposed alignment.

Construction Effects 

The Alignment Adjustment Areas and the Profile Modification would not substantially 

increase the overall alignment length and thus would have a negligible impact on the 

amount of energy required to construct the project as a whole. Similarly, the RSMSF, the 

reduced OMSF 2, and Wigwam MSF would not substantially change the amount of energy 

needed to construct or operate these facilities. 

Construction of the Frias Substation would require additional energy to construct this 4 

acre facility. The Frias Substation is needed if an MSF option in the Las Vegas Valley is 

selected, either Wigwam or Robindale, since neither include substations. 

The addition of the Frias Substation would be minor compared to the size of the project as 

a whole. Moreover, the Frias Substation is directly adjacent to electrical transmission 

lines and thus does not require construction of a separate utility corridor. Therefore, the 

Frias Substation would not substantially increase energy use of the project as a whole. 

When considering the potential long term effects, construction energy use is a temporary 

commitment of energy resources and, after constructed, the railway would reduce energy 

usage overall. 
DesertXpress 3.13 Energy 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.13-10 

As stated in Section 3.13.4.2 of the Draft EIS, construction-related energy consumption 

would not be anticipated to result in a substantial adverse effect as implementation of the 

project would result in energy payback over time when compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

3.13.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

The project, incorporating the modifications and additions, would result in an overall 

reduction in total energy consumption (electric power demand and petroleum-based 

consumption) under either the DEMU or EMU technology options. The project, with 

incorporation of the modifications and additions, would continue to result in a reduction 

in automobile traffic that would be greater than the new energy required by the railway. 

As a result, operational effects of the project modifications and additions would not 

require mitigation. 

The project modifications and additions would not change the conclusion that 

construction of the project would result in one-time temporary energy consumption 

effects related to construction. However, the following measures from Section 3.13.5 of 

the Draft EIS remain applicable means to further conserve energy resources during 

construction: 

 Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan. 

 Use energy efficient construction equipment and vehicles. 

 Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool 

for travel to and from construction sites. 

3.13.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

The energy analysis presented in Section 3.13.4 of the Draft EIS identified a net energy 

benefit (over the No Action Alternative) as a result of implementing either technology 

option. Therefore, no mitigation measures were presented. The energy savings during 

operation of the DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train, when compared to future 

conditions without the project, would offset temporary energy consumption during 

construction so that it is not considered an adverse effect. The measures above were 

identified to further conserve energy consumption during the construction period. As 

DesertXpress would have the beneficial overall effect of reducing energy use over time, no 

residual adverse effects related to energy would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-1 

3.14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section discusses the potential impacts to biological resources related to the project 

modifications and additions and appropriate mitigation measures. 

3.14.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards pertinent to biological resources as described in Section 

3.14.1 of the Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and remain 

applicable to the proposed project. 

Regional Conditions 

The regional biological environment has not changed since publication of the Draft EIS. 

Table 3.14-1 of the Draft EIS provides a summary of the vegetation community types, 

wetlands, invasive plant species, special-status plants, and special-status wildlife 

vegetation communities and other land use types in the project study area. 

Figures S-3.14-1 through S-3.14-5 show the locations of known occurrences of specialstatus plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the project modifications and additions. 

Victorville Station Site 3 

The VV3 site is located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway corridor on undeveloped 

lands. Table S-3.14-1 identifies sensitive biological resources specific to the vicinity of 

VV3. Figure S-3.14.1 shows the location and distribution of these sensitive biological 

resources. 

As noted in Table S-3.14.1, the VV3 site crosses one stream, the Bell Mountain Wash. 

There are no identified sensitive plant communities within the vicinity of the VV3 site. 

Table S-3.14-1 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to 

Occur in Vicinity of VV3 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Sensitive Plant Communities & Wetlands 

Waters of the United 

States including 

Wetlands 

 Coordination regarding 

jurisdiction of surface water 

resources within the project 

study area is currently 

underway with the USACE. 

The drainages within the study 

area are ephemeral. The 

principal drainage in this area 

is Bell Mountain Wash. 

Yes 

Special-Status Plant Species 

None 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-2 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Desert tortoise T/T/--/W, NE California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB) identified 

suitable habitat in the area and 

several tortoises were 

observed near the study area 

in 2007 surveys. Suitable 

habitat occurs in desert scrub 

habitats. 

Yes 

Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 

project study area and no 

suitable habitat within vicinity 

of VV3. 

No 

Cooper’s hawk --/SSC/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Least Bell’s vireo E/E/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Le Conte’s thrasher --/SSC/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Loggerhead shrike --/SSC/--/W Suitable habitat occurs within 

vicinity of VV3 and throughout 

project study area. 

Yes 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher 

E/E/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Prairie falcon --/SSC/--/NE No CNDDB occurrences within 

10 miles of VV3. May occur in 

cliff areas near Victorville. 

Yes 

Summer tanager --/SSC/--W. NE No suitable habitat within 

vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Swainson’s hawk No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Western burrowing owl --/T/--/W, NE Several occurrences within 10 

miles of project study area and 

one owl pellet observed during 

2007 surveys. Suitable habitat 

occurs in desert scrub habitat. 

Yes 

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

C/E/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Vermillion flycatcher --/SSC/--/ W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Yellow warbler --/SSC/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Yellow breasted chat --/SSC/--/W, NE No suitable nesting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Pallid bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrence within 

10 miles of VV3; may occur in 

cliff areas near Victorville. 

Yes 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-3 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrence within 

10 miles of VV3; may occur in 

cliff areas near Victorville. 

Yes 

Greater western mastiff 

bat 

--/SSC/--/W, NE No CNDDB occurrence within 

10 miles of VV3; may occur in 

cliff areas near Victorville. 

Yes 

Spotted bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences within 

10 miles of project study area; 

may occur in cliff area at 

southern end of alignment 

near Victorville. 

Yes 

Silver-haired bat 

--/SSC/--/-- No CNDDB occurrences within 

10 miles of project study area. 

No suitable roosting habitat 

within vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Mojave River vole --/SSC/--/W No suitable habitat within VV3. No 

Mohave ground 

squirrel 

--/T/--/W, NE Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Habitat assessment 

indicates suitable habitat 

occurs in vicinity of VV3. 

Yes 

American badger 

–/SSC/--/-- Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat 

throughout project study area 

in desert scrub communities 

within vicinity of VV3. 

Yes 

Banded gila monster --/--/--/C No suitable habitat within the 

vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Desert bighorn sheep --/ FP/S/W, NE No suitable habitat within the 

vicinity of VV3. 

No 

Special Management Lands 

None 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

Status explanations: 

CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database 

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

C = species for which USFWS has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 

support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance 

of the proposed rule is precluded. 

FS = U.S. Forest Service sensitive species 

(Region). 

-- = no listing. 

State

E = listed as endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

FP = fully protected under the California Fish and 

Game Code. 

SSC = species of special concern in California. 

-- = no listing. 

BLM

S = listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

-- = no listing. 

HCP

W = species covered by the West Mojave Habitat 

Conservation Plan. 

NE = species covered by the Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Plan 

-- = no listing
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-4 

.

OMSF 2 

The size, not the location, of OMSF 2 has been modified since publication of the Draft EIS. 

Therefore, the assessment of existing and potential biological resources is unchanged from 

the information presented in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. Figure S-3.14-1 shows 

the sensitive biological resources within the vicinity of OMSF 2. 

Segment 2C 

Both Segment 2C alignment options would be located on disturbed lands within the 

existing I-15 freeway corridor. Table S-3.14-2 lists the sensitive biological resources 

known or with potential to occur within the vicinity of the Segment 2C alignment options. 

Figure S-3.14-2 shows Segment 2C and the distributions of these sensitive biological 

resources near the alignment options. 

Table S-3.14-2 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to 

Occur in Vicinity of Segment 2C 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 2C Side 

Running 

2C Median1

Special Plant Communities and Wetlands 

None 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Barstow woolly 

sunflower 

–/–/–/W One CNDDB occurrence 

approximately 2 miles south of 

project study area west of 

Barstow. 

Yes No 

Creamy blazing star 

–/–/–/– One CNDDB occurrence 

approximately 2.5 miles south 

of project study area at 

Yermo. 

Yes No 

Crucifixion thorn 

–/–/–/NE, W One CNDDB occurrence 

approximately 2.5 miles south 

of project study area at 

Yermo. 

Yes No 

Parish’s phacelia 

–/–/–/W One CNDDB occurrence 

approximately 2.5 miles south 

of project study area at 

Yermo. 

Yes Yes 

 

1 Information for the Segment 2C Median alignment option relates to areas where the Segment 2C Median 

alignment does not overlap with the Segment 2C Side Running alignment option (where the rail alignment is 

located within the I-15 median through central Barstow). 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-5 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 2C Side 

Running 

2C Median1

Mojave monkeyflower 

–/–/S/– One CNDDB occurrence 

approximately 3 miles north of 

project study area at Yermo; 

others located further from 

project study area south of 

Barstow and Yermo. 

Yes No 

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Desert tortoise 

T/T/--/W, NE Desert tortoises observed 

during 2007 surveys. Suitable 

habitat occurs throughout 

project study area. 

Yes No 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 

project study area. Suitable 

habitat occurs in sandy habitat 

south of Mojave River 

crossing. 

Yes No 

Western burrowing owl 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat occurs 

throughout project study area 

in desert scrub and 

agricultural habitats. 

Yes Yes 

Le Conte’s thrasher 

--/SSC/--/W, NE Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat 

throughout project study area 

in desert scrub communities. 

Yes No 

Loggerhead shrike 

--/SSC/--/W Observed in 2007 desert 

tortoise surveys. Suitable 

habitat occurs throughout 

project study area. 

Yes No 

Western snowy plover 

--/SSC/--/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Potential nesting habitat 

in portion of project study area 

that crosses dry lakebed. 

Yes No 

Desert bighorn sheep 

--/ FP/S/W, NE CNDDB records indicate 

suitable habitat within 10 miles 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat does not occur within 

project study area. 

No No 

Mohave ground squirrel 

--/T/--/W, NE Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Habitat assessment 

indicates suitable habitat in 

areas with desert scrub. 

Yes No 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-6 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 2C Side 

Running 

2C Median1

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE One CNDDB occurrence 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. No suitable roosting 

habitat in project study area. 

No No 

Banded Gila monster --/--/--/C No suitable habitat within the 

vicinity of Segment 2C. No No 

Roosting Bats No suitable habitat within the 

vicinity of Segment 2C. No No 

American badger 

–/SSC/--/-- Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat 

throughout project study area 

in desert scrub communities. 

Yes No 

Special Management Lands

Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat Superior-Cronese Unit Yes No 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

Status explanations: 

CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database 

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

C = species for which USFWS has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 

support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance 

of the proposed rule is precluded. 

FS = U.S. Forest Service sensitive species 

(Region). 

-- = no listing. 

State

E = listed as endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

FP = fully protected under the California Fish and 

Game Code. 

SSC = species of special concern in California. 

-- = no listing. 

BLM

S = listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

-- = no listing. 

HCP

W = species covered by the West Mojave Habitat 

Conservation Plan. 

NE = species covered by the Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Plan 

-- = no listing

.
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-7 

Segment 4C 

In the Mountain Pass area, Segment 4C would be located on lands dominated by 

blackbrush shrubland. Segment 4C would cross the northeast flank of the Clark 

Mountains through steep rocky, sparsely vegetated shrubland, before descending into 

creosote bush scrub around Wheaton Wash and areas of mesquite shrubland. 

Table S-3.14-3 lists the sensitive biological resources known or potentially occurring 

within the vicinity of the Segment 4C. Figure S-3.14-4 shows Segment 4C and the 

distributions of these sensitive biological resources near the rail alignment. 

Table S-3.14-3 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to 

Occur in Vicinity of the Segment 4C 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for 

Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Sensitive Plant Communities & Wetlands 

Mesquite bosque –/S/–/– Three occurrence mapped in Wheaton 

Wash on east side of Mountain Pass. Yes 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Mormon needle grass 

–/–/–/– One CNDDB occurrence approximately 

1 mile west of alignment at Mountain 

Pass. 

Yes 

Jaeger’s ivesia –/–/1B.3/Sensitive 

Several CNDDB occurrences 

approximately 0.5 to 1 mile west of 

alignment. 

Yes 

Rusby’s desert-mallow 

–/–/S/NE One CNDDB occurrence approximately 

1.5 miles west of alignment at Mountain 

Pass. 

Yes 

Viviparous foxtail cactus 

–/–/–/– One CNDDB occurrence approximately 

1.5 miles west of alignment at Mountain 

Pass. 

Yes 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Desert tortoise 

T/T/--/W, NE Desert tortoises observed during 2007 

surveys. Suitable habitat occurs 

throughout project study area in desert 

scrub habitats. 

Yes 

Banded Gila monster 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles 

of project study area. Suitable habitat 

occurs in rocky habitat. 

Yes 

Bendire’s thrasher 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No occurrences in project study area. 

Potential nesting habitat in Joshua tree 

woodland. 

Yes 

Crissal thrasher 

--/SSC/--/NE No CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles 

of project study area. Suitable habitat 

in larger washes. 

Yes 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-8 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for 

Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Golden eagle 

PR/SSC,FP/--/NE No CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles 

of project study area. Suitable nesting 

habitat occurs in rocky habitat. 

Yes 

Le Conte’s thrasher 

--/SSC/--/W, NE No occurrences within project study 

area. Suitable habitat in desert scrub 

communities. 

Yes 

Prairie falcon 

--/SSC/--/NE No CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles 

of project study area. Suitable nesting 

habitat occurs in rocky habitat. 

Yes 

Western burrowing owl 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No occurrences within 10 miles of 

project study area. Suitable habitat 

occurs in desert scrub habitat. 

Yes 

Western snowy plover 

--/SSC/--/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences within 10 miles 

of project study area. Potential nesting 

habitat on Ivanpah Dry Lake. 

No 

California leaf-nosed bat 

SC/SSC/S No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Desert bighorn sheep 

--/ FP/S/W, NE CNDDB records indicate suitable 

habitat within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat does occur within 

project study area. Bighorn sheep 

maybe especially dependent on springs 

as a water source in the Clark 

Mountains. 

Yes 

Greater western mastiff 

bat 

--/SSC/--/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Hoary bat 

--/SSC/--/-- One CNDDB occurrence within 10 

miles of project study area. No suitable 

roosting habitat in project study area. 

No 

Long-legged myotis 

--/--/S/NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Pallid bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Spotted bat 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 

Western small-footed 

myotis 

--/--/S/NE No CNDDB occurrences in 10 miles of 

project study area. Potential to roost in 

caves located in project study area. 

Yes 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-9 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for 

Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

American Badger 

–/SSC/--/-- Several CNDDB occurrences within 10 

miles of project study area. Suitable 

habitat throughout project study area in 

desert scrub communities 

Yes 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard --/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in project study area. Suitable habitat does not 

occur in Segment 4.

No 

Mohave ground squirrel --/T/--/W, NE Habitat assessment indicates suitable 

habitat does not occur in Segment 4. No 

Special Management Lands 

None 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

Status explanations: 

CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database 

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

C = species for which USFWS has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 

support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance 

of the proposed rule is precluded. 

FS = U.S. Forest Service sensitive species 

(Region). 

-- = no listing. 

State

E = listed as endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

FP = fully protected under the California Fish and 

Game Code. 

SSC = species of special concern in California. 

-- = no listing. 

BLM

S = listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

-- = no listing. 

HCP

W = species covered by the West Mojave Habitat 

Conservation Plan. 

NE = species covered by the Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Plan 

-- = no listing

.

Relocated Sloan MSF 

The RSMSF is two miles from the Sloan Road MSF evaluated in the Draft EIS, within a 

similar biological region. Therefore, existing biological resources on and near the RSMSF 

are similar to those of the Sloan Road MSF site evaluated in Section 3.14.3.2 of the Draft 

EIS. 

Table S-3.14-4 identifies sensitive resource types specific to the vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Figure S-3.14-4 shows the RSMSF site and the locations and distributions of these 

sensitive biological resources. 

No sensitive plant communities occur within the vicinity of the RSMSF. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-10 

Table S-3.14-4 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to 

Occur in Vicinity of the RSMSF 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Special Plant Communities and Wetlands 

None 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Rosy two-tone 

beardtongue 

--/--/S/C Three NNHP occurrences within 

the project study area northeast 

of Jean. Species is known to 

occur within the vicinity of the 

RSMSF. 

Yes 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Banded gecko 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Great Basin collard lizard 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Desert iguana 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Large-spotted leopard 

lizard 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Desert tortoise 

T/T/--/W, NE Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrence in project 

study area just north of Jean. 

Suitable habitat occurs. 

Yes 

Banded Gila monster 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat occurs within the vicinity 

of the RSMSF near the North 

McCullough Mountain pass. 

Yes 

Western chuckwalla 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat does not occur within 

the vicinity of the RSMSF. 

No 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-11 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Sidewinder 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Speckled rattlesnake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Mojave green rattlesnake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Glossy snake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Common king snake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Western leaf-nosed snake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Western long-nosed snake 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Species 

is known to occur within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Sonoran lyre snake 

--/P/S/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat occurs within the vicinity 

of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

American peregrine falcon 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat does not occur within 

the vicinity of the RSMSF. 

No 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-12 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential Occurrence 

Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Blue grosbeak 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of the project study area. 

Suitable habitat occurs in larger 

washes that are crossed by the 

project. 

Yes 

Phainopepla 

--/--/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

habitat occurs in larger washes 

that are crossed by the project. 

Yes 

Nesting raptors/migratory 

birds 

-- Suitable foraging habitat occurs 

in the vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Western burrowing owls 

--/P/S/W No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity 

of project study area. Suitable 

nesting habitat occurs within the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. 

Yes 

Mohave ground squirrel --/T/--/W, NE Habitat assessment indicates suitable habitat does not occur 

in vicinity of the RSMSF.

No 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard 

--/SSC/S/W, NE No CNDDB occurrences in 

project study area. Suitable 

habitat does not occur in vicinity 

of the RSMSF.

No 

American Badger 

–/SSC/--/-- Several CNDDB occurrences 

within 10 miles of project study 

area. Suitable habitat 

throughout project study area in 

desert scrub communities 

Yes 

Special Management Lands 

None 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

Status explanations: 

CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database 

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

C = species for which USFWS has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 

support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance 

of the proposed rule is precluded. 

FS = U.S. Forest Service sensitive species 

(Region). 

-- = no listing. 

State

E = listed as endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

FP = fully protected under the California Fish and 

Game Code. 

SSC = species of special concern in California. 

-- = no listing. 

BLM

S = listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

-- = no listing. 

HCP

W = species covered by the West Mojave Habitat 

Conservation Plan. 

NE = species covered by the Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Plan 

-- = no listing

.
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-13 

Frias Substation 

The proposed site for the Frias Substation is located immediately west of the I-15 freeway 

corridor in the southern Las Vegas metropolitan area. Due to the urbanized nature of the 

area, with the exception of western burrowing owl, no sensitive wildlife species exist on 

the site.3 

Table S-3.14-5 documents the special-status plant species with potential to occur on the 

Frias Substation site. The Frias Substation site is characterized as eastern Mojave Desert 

creosote-bursage with some acacia gregii (mistletoe) adjacent to Dean Martin Drive and 

Haleh Road intersection just north of the site. 

Figure S-3.14-3 shows the location of the substation site in relation to nearby biological 

resources. The Frias Substation site is not located within any designated special 

management lands. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

The Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAAs) would result in slight modifications to portions 

of Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. Due to the minor shift (no more than 

400 feet) associated with the AAAs, the biological environments for each rail segment 

(Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B) are the same as described in Section 

3.14.3.2 of the Draft EIS. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The orientation, not the location, of the Wigwam MSF has been modified since publication 

of the Draft EIS. Therefore, existing and potential biological resources at this site are the 

same as presented in Section 3.14.3.2 of the Draft EIS. Figure S-3.14-5 shows the 

sensitive biological resources within the vicinity of the Wigwam MSF modification. 

Profile Modification 

The Profile Modification entails depressing a portion of the Segment 3B rail alignment 

within a retained cut and therefore would not cross any new biological resource 

environments not previously identified for Segment 3B in Section 3.14.3.2 of the Draft 

EIS. Figure S-3.14-3 shows the sensitive biological resources within the vicinity of the 

Profile Modification.

Table S-3.14-5 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur on Frias 

Substation Site 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for 

Occurrence Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Sensitive Plant Communities & Wetlands 

None 

Special-Status Plant Species 

Las Vegas bearpoppy 

--/SS/--/C No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity of 

project study area. 

No 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-14 

Biological Resource Status Description Potential for 

Occurrence Federal/State/BLM/HCP 

Las Vegas catseye 

--/SS/--/E No Nevada Natural Heritage 

Program occurrences in vicinity of 

project study area. 

No 

Las Vegas buckwheat 

--/--/S/-- Suitable habitat known to occur 

within the Segment 6 rail 

alignment. 

No 

Yellow two-tone 

beardtongue 

--/--/S/E Suitable habitat known to occur 

within the Segment 6 rail alignment 

and on Frias Substation site. 

Yes 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

Western burrowing owl --/T/--/W, NE Several occurrences within 10 

miles of project study area. 

Suitable habitat occurs in desert 

scrub habitat. 

Yes 

Special Management Lands 

None 

Source: ICF, 2010. 

Status explanations: 

CNDDB – California Natural Diversity Database 

Federal

E = listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the federal 

Endangered Species Act. 

PE = proposed for federal listing as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened 

under the federal Endangered Species Act. 

C = species for which USFWS has on file sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 

support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance 

of the proposed rule is precluded. 

FS = U.S. Forest Service sensitive species 

(Region). 

-- = no listing. 

State

E = listed as endangered under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

T = listed as threatened under the California 

Endangered Species Act. 

FP = fully protected under the California Fish and 

Game Code. 

SSC = species of special concern in California. 

-- = no listing. 

BLM

S = listed as sensitive by the Bureau of Land 

Management. 

-- = no listing. 

HCP

W = species covered by the West Mojave Habitat 

Conservation Plan. 

NE = species covered by the Northern and Eastern 

Mojave Plan 

-- = no listing

.

3.14.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

The same methodology used in Section 3.14.2.2 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

potential direct and indirect biological resources effects of the proposed modifications and 

additions. 

Direct effects would include, but are not limited to, grubbing, grading, and other 

construction and operation activities that disturb vegetation and soil resources and 

disrupt the biological or hydrologic function of surface water features. 

 Permanent direct effects would result from the placement of fill material for the 

railway bed and associated stations, operation, and maintenance facilities thus 

converting the area from its current condition to a transportation facility. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-15 

 Temporary direct effects would result from soil compaction, construction dust, 

water and contaminant runoff from the construction area, and constructionrelated noise and vibrations from construction equipment. 

Indirect effects include, but are not limited to, the modification of habitat functions 

resulting from wind-blown dust, erosion of sediments, noxious weed invasion, or 

hydrologic modifications. 

FRA has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) throughout 

the development of the Supplemental Draft EIS. For a discussion of agency coordination, 

refer to Section 3.14.2.2 of the Draft EIS and Chapter 4.0 of this Supplemental Draft 

EIS. 

Additional field surveys to document existing biological conditions and evaluate potential 

effects were conducted for the project modifications and additions. 

Consistent with the thresholds established in Section 3.14.4.2 of the Draft EIS, effects 

on vegetation and wildlife would be considered adverse if any of the following impacts 

were to occur: 

 Loss of individual or populations of a Federal or state-listed threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat 

 Loss of critical habitat for Federally listed threatened or endangered species 

 Loss of habitat that is sensitive or rare in the region, such as mesquite shrubland, 

Joshua tree wooded shrubland, wetlands, cliff face formations, and surface water 

sources 

 Substantial loss of populations or habitat of a species that is a Federal candidate, is 

federally proposed for listing, is a BLM sensitive species, is a California species of 

special concern, is on the CNPS Inventory 1B or 2, is identified as a covered species 

in the Clark County MSHCP, is regionally rare, or is otherwise so sensitive as to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the species in the region 

 Loss of long-term disruption of wildlife movement corridor 

 Substantial permanent loss of natural vegetation 

 Substantial loss of diversity of species or natural communities and wildlife habitat 

 Incompatibility with local, state, or Federal land management plans 

3.14.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Each of the project modifications and additions were evaluated against the criteria 

identified above to determine whether any adverse effects would occur. The discussions 

below consider the project modifications and additions per these criteria. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-16 

Victorville Station Site 3 

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

The construction of VV3 for either parking option would have the potential to introduce or 

spread noxious weeds. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal associated with 

construction equipment or wind-blown deposits would have the potential to introduce 

and/or spread noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation communities 

and could increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region due to an 

increase in the fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. However, 

implementation of VV3 would not increase or decrease the risk of introducing or 

spreading noxious weeds as concluded in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. The construction and 

operation of VV3 for either parking option would not change the nature of this potential 

loss and any damage to or loss of these communities would be considered an adverse 

effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

There are no sensitive vegetation communities on or within the vicinity of the VV3 site. 

No effects would occur. 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint of VV3 under either parking option, special-status plant populations 

and their habitat would be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. 

VV3A would have the potential to result in fewer impacts to special-status plant species as 

compared to VV3B, since the parking area would be constructed within an already 

disturbed utility corridor below overhead electrical transmission lines as opposed to being 

developed on currently undisturbed lands. As documented in Section 3.14.4.5 of the 

Draft EIS, focused presence/absence surveys have not been conducted for the project 

alignment due to prolonged drought in the region between 2005 and 2009. These surveys 

will be conducted prior to initiating construction and stipulated project avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation requirements would be revised in cooperation with resource 

agencies to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to special-status plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Construction and operation of VV3 would remove or degrade desert tortoise habitat. The 

affected acreage of each VV3 parking option, including the tail tracks connecting the 

station to the rail alignment, is summarized below: 

 VV3A would permanently impact 205.5 acres and temporarily impact 38.5 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat. 

 VV3B would permanently impact 217.9 acres and temporarily impact 38.5 acres of 

desert tortoise habitat. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-17 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

I-15 serves as an existing barrier to wildlife movement within the vicinity of VV3 due to its 

linear nature. VV3 would not introduce a new linear barrier to wildlife movement, since 

movement around the station building and the associated parking areas would be 

maintained. VV3’s proximity to I-15 blunts the potential for the station area to serve as a 

barrier to wildlife movement. No effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

Construction of VV3 could result in injury or mortality of Mohave ground squirrel and 

remove foraging habitat. Operation of VV3 would convert suitable habitat to 

transportation use. The affected acreage of each VV3 parking option, including the tail 

tracks connecting the station to the rail alignment, is summarized below: 

 VV3A would permanently impact 205.5 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

VV3A would temporarily impact 38.5 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

 VV3B would permanently impact 217.9 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

VV3B would temporarily impact 38.5 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

Direct Mortality of Mojave fringe-toed Lizard 

There are no known occurrences of Mojave fringe-toed lizard in the VV3 area nor is there 

suitable habitat for this species in the vicinity of VV3. No permanent or temporary effects 

would occur. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance of Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

No suitable nesting habitat for raptors or migratory birds is located on or within the 

vicinity of VV3 under either parking option. No permanent or temporary effects would 

occur. 

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

There are no known occurrences of banded gila monster in the VV3 area nor is there 

suitable habitat in the vicinity of VV3. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

VV3 is not located within Clark County and is therefore not subject to the Clark County 

MSHCP. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Construction and operation of VV3 could include the direct loss of burrows and foraging 

habitat for burrowing owls. The shoulders or roads, dirt mounds and berms, and open 

areas provide suitable habitat for burrowing owls, especially where open culverts, ground 

squirrel burrows, desert tortoise burrows, and badger burrows occur. Construction 

activities, such as grading and site preparation, could result in the removal of active nests 

if construction occurs during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). 

Construction activities could also affect burrowing owls and their burrows during the nonbreeding season (September 1 through January 31). As burrowing owls utilize the same 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-18 

habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed that the affected acreage of burrowing owl habitat 

is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise habitat described for VV3 for either 

parking option. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

No suitable nursery or roosting habitats for bats are located on or within the vicinity of 

VV3. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Effects to American Badger 

Construction of the VV3 parking options could result in the injury or mortality of badgers. 

As American badgers utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, the affected acreage of 

American badger habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise habitat. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

There are no known occurrences of desert bighorn sheep in the VV3 area nor is there 

suitable habitat in the vicinity of VV3. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

VV3 would not be located within a Desert Wildlife Management Area (DWMA) or Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), as defined by the BLM. No effects to critical 

habitat would occur. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the United States 

VV3 would result in the bisection of Bell Mountain Wash. Construction of VV3A or VV3B 

would permanently remove vegetation from Bell Mountain Wash and would cause soil and 

vegetation disturbance within the channel and banks. This includes permanent 

disturbance from the placement of culverts within the drainage and temporary impacts 

resulting from construction activity, such as sedimentation and erosion. Construction 

pollutants could also be spilled into the drainage. 

OMSF 2 

The reduced size of OMSF 2 would not result in any new direct or indirect biological 

resource effects beyond those described in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS since the 

location of the facility has not changed. Construction and operation of OMSF 2 could 

introduce or spread noxious weeds; could result in the loss or damage to native vegetation 

communities; impact special-status plant populations; permanently and temporarily 

impact desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, burrowing 

owls, and American badger; and result in direct and indirect impacts to wetlands and 

Waters of the United States. 

Segment 2C 

Segment 2C would truncate the length of Segment 1 by 12 miles by removing the northern 

reaches of Segment 1; Segment 1 and Segment 2C would connect about 7 miles southwest 

of Lenwood. Therefore, Segment 2C would reduce impacts to biological resources 

associated with the northern reaches of Segment 1. These resources include sensitive 

plant and wildlife habitat areas, as shown on Figure S-3.14-1. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-19 

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

Construction of the Segment 2C alignment options would have the potential to introduce 

or spread noxious weeds. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal associated with 

construction equipment or wind-blow deposits would have the potential to introduce 

and/or spread noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation communities 

and could increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region due to an 

increase in the fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. However, 

implementation of the Segment 2C alignment options would not increase or decrease the 

risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds as described in Section 3.14.4.5 of the 

Draft EIS. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. The construction and 

operation the Segment 2C alignment options would not change the nature of this potential 

loss and any damage to or loss of these communities would be considered an adverse 

effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

There are no sensitive vegetation communities on or within the vicinity of Segment 2C. 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint the Segment 2C alignment options, special-status plant populations 

and their habitat would be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. As 

previously stated, focused presence/absence surveys have not been conducted but will be 

completed prior to initiating construction. Stipulated avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation requirements would be revised in cooperation with resource agencies to reduce 

or mitigate adverse impacts to special-status plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Construction and operation of Segment 2C would result in the removal or degradation of 

desert tortoise habitat. During the construction period, construction activities within the 

temporary construction area (TCA) along Segment 2C would also temporarily affect desert 

tortoise habitat. Affected acreages of each Segment 2C alignment option are below: 

 Segment 2C Side Running: Permanent impacts to 37.5 acres and temporary 

impacts to 101.4 acres of desert tortoise habitat. 

 Segment 2C Median: Permanent impacts to 37.4 acres and temporary impacts to 

97.1 acres of desert tortoise habitat. 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

No wildlife fragmentation would occur as a result of Segment 2C, as the rail alignment 

would be within the existing I-15 freeway corridor whether side running or within the 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-20 

median. I-15 already establishes an existing linear barrier for wildlife movement to the 

east and west south of Lenwood and to the north and south through Barstow. 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

Construction of Segment 2C could result in injury or mortality of Mohave ground squirrel 

and removal of foraging habitat. Construction activities within the TCA along Segment 2C 

could also result in temporary impacts to Mohave ground squirrels and associated habitat. 

Each option would result in permanent impacts to 36 acres and temporary impacts to 89.1 

acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

Direct Mortality of Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

Suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard is present in the vicinity of the Mojave 

River. The Segment 2C Side Running option would traverse through areas near the 

Mojave River and would convert Mojave fringe-toed lizard habitat to transportation use 

and permanently remove suitable habitat. 

The Segment 2C Median option would be located within the existing I-15 median 

immediately west of the Mojave River which does not contain suitable habitat for the 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The Segment 2C Median option would not have an adverse 

effect on Mojave fringe-toed lizard. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

The Segment 2C alignment options could affect suitable nesting habitat for raptors and 

migratory birds south of and through Barstow, where each alignment options would follow 

the same rail alignment immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway. There is no suitable 

nesting habitat for raptors or migratory birds within the median of the I-15 freeway. As 

such, where the Segment 2C Median alignment option would cross into the I-15 median in 

central Barstow, no effects to nesting raptors or migratory birds would occur. 

Construction activities could result in the removal or disturbance of shrubs that provide 

potential nesting habitat. The impacted acreage of suitable nesting habitat for raptors and 

migratory birds would be comparable to the affected acreage described for desert tortoise 

habitat for the Segment 2C alignment options. 

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

There are no known occurrences of banded gila monster in Segment 2C nor is there 

suitable habitat located in the vicinity of the Segment 2C. No permanent or temporary 

effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

Segment 2C is not located within Clark County and is therefore not subject to the Clark 

County MSHCP. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Development of the Segment 2C alignment options could include the direct loss of 

burrows and foraging habitat for burrowing owls. Construction activities, such as grading 

and site preparation, could result in the removal of active nests if construction occurs 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-21 

during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Construction activities could 

also affect burrowing owls and their burrows during the non-breeding season (September 

1 through January 31). The Segment 2C Side Running alignment option would traverse 

areas of suitable burrowing owl habitat within the I-15 freeway corridor. The portion of 

Segment 2C Median alignment option located within the median of the I-15 freeway would 

not affect suitable burrowing owl habitat and therefore have slightly less impact on 

burrowing owl habitat than Segment 2C Side Running. 

As burrowing owls utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed that the 

affected acreage of burrowing owl habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert 

tortoise habitat described for the Segment 2C alignment options. Permanent impacts to 

burrowing owl would be similar for the Segment 2C alignment options, while the Segment 

2C Side Running alignment option would result in slightly greater temporary impacts than 

the Segment 2C Median alignment option. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

No suitable nursery or roosting habitats for bats are located in or within the vicinity of 

Segment 2C. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Effects to American Badger 

Segment 2C could affect suitable habitat for American badger south of Barstow, where the 

alignment would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway. Construction of the 

rail alignment immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway could result in the injury or 

mortality of badgers. The impacted acreage of suitable habitat for American badger would 

be comparable to the affected acreage described for desert tortoise habitat for the Segment 

2C alignment options. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

There are no known occurrences of desert bighorn sheep in Segment 2C nor is there any 

suitable habitat located in the vicinity of Segment 2C. No permanent or temporary effects 

would occur. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

Segment 2C would be located within the existing I-15 transportation corridor and would 

not traverse through lands within a DWMA or ACEC. Segment 2C would avoid impacts to 

the Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat area associated with Segment 2A 

and Segment 2B, as evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the United States 

The Segment 2C alignment options would cross 12 streams. Construction of the rail 

alignment would cause soil and vegetation disturbance within the channel and banks of 

these streams. Permanent disturbance would occur as a result of the placement of culverts 

within the drainages. Temporary impacts would result from construction activity, which 

could cause sedimentation, erosion, and runoff of construction pollutants into the 

drainage. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-22 

Segment 4C 

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

The construction of Segment 4C would have the potential to introduce or spread noxious 

weeds. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal associated with construction 

equipment or wind-blow deposits would have the potential to introduce and/or spread 

noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation communities and could 

increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region due to an increase in the 

fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. However, implementation of 

Segment 4C would not increase or decrease the risk of introducing or spreading noxious 

weeds as concluded in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. The construction and 

operation of Segment 4C would not change the nature of this potential loss and any 

damage to or loss of these communities would be considered an adverse effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Construction and operation of Segment 4C would convert sensitive vegetation and 

sensitive plant habitat areas to transportation use. Segment 4C would permanently 

impact 1.9 acres and temporarily impact 3.1 acres of Mesquite Shrubland. 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint of Segment 4C, special-status plant populations and their habitat 

would be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. Focused 

presence/absence surveys will be completed in 2010. Stipulated avoidance, minimization, 

and mitigation requirements would be revised in cooperation with resource agencies to 

reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to special-status plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

Construction of Segment 4C would involve the removal or degradation of desert tortoise 

habitat. Construction activities within the five TCAs along Segment 4C would also result 

in temporary impacts to desert tortoise and habitat. Segment 4C would permanently 

impact 182.9 acres and temporarily impact 490.0 acres of desert tortoise habitat. 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

Segment 4C would travel away from the I-15 freeway corridor north of Mountain Pass and 

would cause habitat fragmentation by creating a new linear feature through currently 

undeveloped lands. The rail alignment would create a barrier to wildlife movement for 

species including, but not limited to, desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoise. Segment 

4C could isolate or block existing habitat east of the proposed rail alignment and west of 

the existing I-15 corridor. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-23 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

There are no known occurrences of Mohave ground squirrels nor is there suitable habitat 

located in the vicinity of Segment 4C. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mojave fringe-toed Lizard 

There are no known occurrences of Mojave fringe-toed lizard nor is there suitable habitat 

located in the vicinity of Segment 4C. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

Segment 4C could disturb nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds. The cliff areas 

through the Clark Mountains provide potential nesting habitat for American peregrine 

falcons, prairie falcons, and golden eagles. Construction activities, such as grading and 

tunneling, could result in the removal or disturbance of these areas that provide suitable 

habitat for migratory birds and raptors.

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

Segment 4C could affect suitable habitat for the banded gila monster, particularly near the 

Mountain Pass area. Construction activities within this area, specifically the use of heavy 

machinery, could result in direct mortality of banded gila monsters. 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

The northern portion of Segment 4C within Nevada is located within the planning 

jurisdiction of the Clark County MSHCP. Construction of the rail alignment would 

temporarily impact suitable habitat for Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species. The 

affected acreage of retile habitat would be comparable to the impacted acreage for desert 

tortoise habitat. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Development of Segment 4C could include the direct loss of burrows and foraging habitat 

for burrowing owls. Construction activities, such as grading and site preparation, could 

result in the removal of active nests if construction occurs during the nesting season 

(February 1 through August 31). Construction activities could also affect burrowing owls 

and their burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). As 

burrowing owls utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed that the affected 

acreage of burrowing owl habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise 

habitat described for Segment 4C. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

Caves and mines located within the vicinity of Segment 4C, specifically within the Clark 

Mountains, provide potential roosting and nursery sites for bats. Disturbance of these 

roosting and/or nursery sites during construction activities, such as tunneling, or 

operation of the trains could result in the injury or mortality of roosting bats. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-24 

Effects to American Badger 

Segment 4C would be located within an area with suitable habitat for American badger. 

Construction activities such a grubbing and off-road travel could result in adverse effects 

to the badger. Since American badgers utilize similar habitat as the desert tortoise, the 

amount of impacted acreage is the same as described for desert tortoise habitat for 

Segment 4C. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

Suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep occurs in the Mountain Pass area of Segment 4C. 

Construction activities associated with Segment 4C, particularly proposed tunneling, 

could directly affect desert bighorn sheep by disrupting lambing areas and by altering the 

flow of natural springs, which provide critical water supply. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

Segment 4C would not traverse through lands within a DWMA or ACEC. Direct and 

Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the United States 

Segment 4C would cross 48 streams. Construction of the rail alignment would cause soil 

and vegetation disturbance within the channel and banks of these streams. Permanent 

disturbance would occur as a result of the placement of culverts within the drainages. 

Temporary impacts would result from construction activity, which could cause 

sedimentation, erosion, and runoff of construction pollutants into the drainage. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

The construction of the RSMSF would have the potential to introduce or spread noxious 

weeds. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal associated with construction 

equipment or wind-blow deposits would have the potential to introduce and/or spread 

noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation communities and could 

increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region due to an increase in the 

fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. However, implementation of the 

RSMSF would not increase or decrease the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds 

as concluded in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. The construction and 

operation of the RSMSF would not change the nature of this potential loss and any 

damage to or loss of these communities would be considered an adverse effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

There are no sensitive vegetation communities on or within the vicinity of the RSMSF site. 

No effects would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-25 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint of the RSMSF, special-status plant populations and their habitat 

would be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. Focused 

presence/absence surveys have not been conducted but will be completed prior to 

initiating construction. Stipulated avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements 

would be revised in cooperation with resource agencies to reduce or mitigate adverse 

impacts to special-status plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

The RSMSF would result in permanent and temporary impacts to desert tortoise habitat. 

The RSMSF would permanently impact 9.1 acres of habitat and temporarily impact 11.4 

acres of habitat. The RSMSF would result in an adverse effect because it would reduce the 

areas suitable for foraging habitat and for the construction of burrows. 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

The linear nature of I-15 creates a barrier to wildlife movement in the vicinity of the 

RSMSF. The RSMSF would not introduce a new barrier to wildlife movement. No 

adverse effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

There are no known occurrences of Mohave ground squirrels nor suitable habitat located 

in the vicinity of the RSMSF. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mojave fringe-toed Lizard 

There are no known occurrences of Mojave fringe-toed lizard nor suitable habitat located 

in the vicinity of the RSMSF. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

Construction and operation of the RSMSF may impact nesting habitat for raptors and 

migratory birds. Construction activities could remove or disturb shrubs and trees that 

provide suitable nesting habitat. 

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

Construction activities could result in direct mortality of gila monsters and permanently 

remove suitable habitat. 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

The RSMSF could impact reptile species covered under the Clark County MSHCP. The 

impact to suitable Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species habitat is comparable to 

the affected acreage of desert tortoise habitat. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Development of the RSMSF could include the direct loss of burrows and foraging habitat 

for burrowing owls. Construction activities, such as grading and site preparation, could 

result in the removal of active nests if construction occurs during the nesting season 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-26 

(February 1 through August 31). Construction activities could also affect burrowing owls 

and their burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). As 

burrowing owls utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed that the affected 

acreage of burrowing owl habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise 

habitat described for the RSMSF. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

No suitable nursery or roosting habitats for bats are located on or within the vicinity of the 

RSMSF. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Effects to American Badger 

Construction of the RSMSF would have the potential to affect American badger habitat, 

which could result in the injury or mortality of badgers. The impact to suitable American 

badger habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise habitat. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

There are no known occurrences of desert bighorn sheep nor suitable habitat in the 

vicinity of the RSMSF. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

The RSMSF would not be located within a DWMA or ACEC. No adverse effects to critical 

habitat would occur. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Water of the United States 

The RSMSF would not impact any stream and would therefore not have an effect on 

wetlands or Waters of the United States. The RSMSF would avoid the stream crossings 

associated with the Las Vegas MSF site options evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Frias Substation 

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

The construction of the Frias Substation would have the potential to introduce or spread 

noxious weeds. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal associated with 

construction equipment or wind-blow deposits would have the potential to introduce 

and/or spread noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation communities 

and could increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region due to an 

increase in the fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. However, 

development of the Frias Substation would not increase or decrease the risk of introducing 

or spreading noxious weeds as concluded in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. The construction and 

operation of the Frias Substation would not change the nature of this potential loss and 

any damage to or loss of these communities would be considered an adverse effect. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-27 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Construction activities associated with the Frias Substation would result in the loss of 

sensitive vegetation communities, which could result in long-term degradation of a 

sensitive plant community. The Frias Substation would impact approximately 4.6 acres of 

Mojave creosote vegetation. 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint the Frias Substation, special-status plant populations and their 

habitat would be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. As 

previously stated, focused presence/absence surveys have not been conducted but will be 

completed prior to initiating construction. Stipulated avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation requirements would be revised in cooperation with resource agencies to reduce 

or mitigate adverse impacts to special-status plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

The Frias Substation site does not include any suitable habitat for desert tortoise given its 

disturbed nature within the suburban context of the metropolitan Las Vegas area. No 

permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

The areas surrounding the Frias Substation is no longer viable as a wildlife movement 

corridor due to the surrounding urbanization, including I-15. No effects to an existing 

wildlife movement corridor would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

There are no known occurrences of Mohave ground squirrel or areas of suitable habitat on 

or in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would 

occur. 

Direct Mortality of Mojave-fringe Toed Lizard 

There are no known occurrences of Mojave fringe-toed lizard or areas of suitable habitat 

on or in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would 

occur. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

There are no known occurrences of nesting raptors or migratory birds or areas of suitable 

habitat on or in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary 

effects would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

There are no known occurrences of banded gila monster or areas of suitable habitat on or 

in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would 

occur. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-28 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

There are no known occurrences of Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species or areas 

of suitable habitat on or in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or 

temporary effects would occur. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Development of the Frias Substation could include the direct loss of burrows and foraging 

habitat for burrowing owls. Construction activities, such as grading and site preparation, 

could result in the removal of active nests if construction occurs during the nesting season 

(February 1 through August 31). Construction activities could also affect burrowing owls 

and their burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31). As 

burrowing owls utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed that the affected 

acreage of burrowing owl habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of desert tortoise 

habitat described for the Frias Substation. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

There are no known occurrences of roosting bats or areas of suitable habitat on or in the 

vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Project-Related Effects to American Badger 

There are no known occurrences of American badger or areas of suitable habitat on or in 

the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would occur. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

There are no known occurrences of desert bighorn sheep or areas of suitable habitat on or 

in the vicinity of the Frias Substation site. No permanent or temporary effects would 

occur. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

The Frias Substation would not be located within a DWMA or ACEC. No adverse effects to 

critical habitat would occur. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Water of the United States 

The Frias Substation would be situated between two existing drainages to the north and 

south. The underground 25 kilovolt (kV) feeder that connects the Frias Substation to the 

autotransformer and rail alignment would, however, cross beneath the existing drainage 

to the north. It is assumed that these drainages have been previously disturbed due to the 

development of Dean Martin Drive to the west and the nearby residential development. 

Temporary impacts would result from construction activity, which could cause 

sedimentation, erosion, and runoff of construction pollutants into the drainage. 

The Frias Substation would not cross any streams and would therefore not have an effect 

on wetlands or Waters of the United States. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-29 

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Potential Introduction or Spread of Noxious Weeds into Natural Vegetation 

Communities 

Construction associated with the AAAs would have the potential to introduce or spread 

noxious weeds. These effects would be the same as described for Segment 2A/2B, 

Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS, as the AAAs would 

only involve a shift of the rail alignments. Ground disturbing activities and seed dispersal 

associated with construction equipment or wind-blow deposits would have the potential to 

introduce and/or spread noxious weeds and adversely impact the natural vegetation 

communities and could increase the frequency of wildland fires within the project region 

due to an increase in the fuel load within the non-fire adapted Mojave Desert. 

Loss of or Damage to Native Vegetation Communities 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS concluded that project construction would result in the 

loss of native vegetation in areas cleared for facility development. Implementation of the 

AAAs would not change the nature of this potential loss and any damage to or loss of these 

communities would be considered an adverse effect. 

Loss of Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

Implementation of the AAAs would not result in additional impacts to sensitive vegetation 

communities beyond the impacts identified for the respective rail alignments (Segment 

2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B) in the Draft EIS. The effects to sensitive vegetation 

communities for each rail alignment with the implementation of the AAAs are 

summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would not result in any additional impacts to 

sensitive vegetation communities beyond the impacts for Segment 2A/2B in the 

Draft EIS. Segment 2A/2B, 2A and Segment 2A/2B, 2B would still each result in 

an impact to 4.6 acres of Mesquite Shrubland. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would not result in any additional impacts 

to sensitive vegetation communities beyond the impacts for Segment 3B in the 

Draft EIS. Segment 3B would still result in permanent impacts to 1.9 acres of 

Mesquite Shrubland and 83.8 acres of Joshua tree wooded shrubland and 

temporary impacts to 13.4 acres of Mesquite Shrubland and 194.4 acres of Joshua 

tree wooded shrubland. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: No sensitive vegetation communities occur within the vicinity of 

AAAs 7 and 8 and no effects would occur. 

Impacts to Special-Status Plant Populations 

Within the footprint of the AAAs, special-status plant populations and their habitat would 

be permanently removed and converted to transportation use. Focused presence/absence 

surveys have not been conducted but will be completed prior to initiating construction. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-30 

Stipulated avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements would be revised in 

cooperation with resource agencies to reduce or mitigate adverse impacts to special-status 

plant populations. 

Impacts to Desert Tortoise and Desert Tortoise Habitat 

The effects of each AAA to desert tortoise are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would result in a slight reduction in permanent and 

temporary impacts to desert tortoise for Segment 2A/2B. 

o With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2A would permanently impact 171.1 

acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 174.1 acres without the 

AAAs. With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2A would temporarily impact 

700.8 acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 731.5 acres without 

the AAAs. 

o With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2B would permanently impact 150.7 

acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 152.5 acres without the 

AAAs. With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2B would temporarily impact 

547.8 acres of desert tortoise habitat, as compared to 585.2 acres without 

the AAAs. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would result in an increase in permanent 

and temporary impacts to desert tortoise for Segment 3B. With AAAs 3 through 6, 

Segment 3B would permanently impact 619.9 acres of desert tortoise habitat as 

compared to 616.5 acres without the AAAs. With AAAs 3 through 6, Segment 3B 

would temporarily impact 1,848.3 acres of desert tortoise habitat as compared to 

1,840 acres without the AAAs. 

 AAA 7: AAA 7 would result in an increase in permanent and temporary impacts to 

desert tortoise for Segment 6B. With AAA 7, Segment 6B would permanently 

impact 39.5 acres of desert tortoise habitat as compared to 37.8 acres without the 

AAA. With AAA 7, Segment 6B would temporarily impact 127.5 acres of desert 

tortoise habitat as compared to 116.6 acres without the AAA. 

 AAA 8: AAA 8 would not cross any suitable habitat for desert tortoise. No 

permanent or temporary impacts would occur. 

Barrier to Wildlife Movement 

The AAAs would not introduce any new barriers to wildlife movement than already 

presented in the respective rail alignments (Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 

6B) considered in the Draft EIS. 

Direct Mortality of Mohave Ground Squirrels 

The effects of each AAA to Mohave ground squirrel are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 and 2: AAAs 1 and 2 would result in a slight increase in permanent 

impacts and a reduction in temporary impacts to Mohave ground squirrel for 

Segment 2A/2B. 

o With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2A would permanently impact 23.4 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-31 

acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat, as compared to 23.2 acres without 

the AAAs. No change to the temporary effects of Segment 2A/2B, 2A would 

occur with AAAs 1 and 2; Segment 2A/2B, 2A would still temporarily 

impact 864.6 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

o With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B, 2B would permanently impact 40.2 

acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat, as compared to 40.3 acres without 

the AAAs. No change to the temporary effects of Segment 2A/2B, 2B would 

occur with AAAs 1 and 2; Segment 2A/2B, 2B would still temporarily 

impact 319.4 acres of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would not alter the affected acreage of 

Mohave ground squirrel for Segment 3B. No permanent impacts would occur, as 

Segment 3B would continue to temporarily impact 61.5 acres of Mohave ground 

squirrel habitat. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 would not result in Segment 6B crossing through 

any suitable habitat for Mohave ground squirrel. No permanent or temporary 

impacts would occur.

Direct Mortality of Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

The potential effects of each AAA to Mojave fringe-toed lizard are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 and 2: Similar to Segment 2A/2B evaluated in Section 3.14.4.5 of the 

Draft EIS, these alignment adjustments would traverse through suitable habitat for 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard near the sand dunes associated with the Mojave River. 

Implementation of the alignment adjustments would convert Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard habitat to transportation use and permanently remove suitable habitat. 

With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B would continue to affect a similar amount of 

habitat for Mojave fringe-toed lizards as assumed in the Draft EIS. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: No suitable habitat for Mojave fringe-toed lizard occurs in or 

within the vicinity of the alignment adjustments to Segment 3B. AAAs 3 through 6 

would thus result in no additional effects. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: Since the Mojave fringe-toed lizard is not considered a threatened 

or sensitive species within Nevada, AAAs 7 and 8 would not introduce any such 

impacts to Segment 6B. 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds 

Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B with incorporation of the AAAs would 

traverse through suitable nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds. Construction 

and operation of the rail alignments with the AAAs could remove or disturb trees or 

shrubs which provide suitable habitat, representing an adverse effect similar to the effect 

identified in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-32 

Direct Mortality of Banded Gila Monster 

The potential effects or each AAA to banded gila monster are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 and 2: No suitable habitat for banded gila monster occurs in or within 

the vicinity of the alignment adjustments to Segment 2A/Segment 2B. No effects 

would occur. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: Similar to Segment 3B evaluated in the Draft EIS, these 

alignment adjustments would traverse through suitable habitat for banded gila 

monster. Construction of the alignment adjustment areas could result in direct 

mortality of banded gila monsters. With AAAs 3 through 6, Segment 3B would 

continue to affect a similar amount of habitat for banded gila monster as assumed 

in the Draft EIS. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: No suitable habitat for banded gila monster occurs in or within 

the vicinity of the alignment adjustments to Segment 2A/Segment 2B. No effects 

would occur. 

Direct Mortality of Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptile Species 

The potential effects of each AAA to the Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species are 

summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 through 6: AAAs 1 through 6 would not be located within Clark County 

and would not be subject to the Clark County MSHCP. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: Construction of AAAs 7 and 8 would temporarily impact suitable 

habitat for banded gecko, Great Basin collard lizard, desert iguana, large-spotted 

leopard lizard, desert tortoise, chuckwalla, sidewinder, specked rattlesnake, 

Mojave green rattlesnake, glossy snake, common king snake, western leaf-nosed 

snake, western long-nosed snake, and Sonoran lyre snake. Construction activities 

may result in the injury or mortality of these species. Since the impacted acreage 

of habitat suitable for Clark County MSHCP covered reptile species is the same as 

for the desert tortoise, implementation of AAA 7 would result in a slight increase in 

temporary and permanent effects to the Clark County MSHCP covered reptile 

species. 

Potential Loss of Disturbance to Burrowing Owls 

Development of the AAAs could include the direct loss of burrows and foraging habitat for 

burrowing owls, similar to the effects of Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B in 

Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. Construction activities, such as grading and site 

preparation, could result in the removal of active nests if construction occurs during the 

nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Construction activities could also affect 

burrowing owls and their burrows during the non-breeding season (September 1 through 

January 31). As burrowing owls utilize the same habitat as desert tortoise, it is assumed 

that the affected acreage of burrowing owl habitat is comparable to the affected acreage of 

desert tortoise habitat described for the AAAs. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-33 

Potential Loss or Disturbance to Roosting Bats 

Bridges, caves, and rock outcrops within the vicinity of the AAAs provide potential 

roosting and nursery sites for bats. Similar to Segments 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 

6B in the Draft EIS, AAAs 1 through 8 could disturb roosting or nursery sites and could 

cause injury or mortality of bats. 

Effects to American Badger 

The potential effects of each AAA to American badger are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1 through 6: Segment 2A/2B and Segment 3B with implementation of 

AAAs 1 through 6 would be located in areas suitable for American badger habitat. 

Similar to the conclusion in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS, construction of the 

rail alignments with the AAAs could result in the injury or mortality of badgers. 

Since American badgers utilize similar habitat as the desert tortoise, the amount of 

impact by AAAs 1 through 6 is anticipated to be the same as described for desert 

tortoise. With AAAs 1 and 2, Segment 2A/2B would result in a slight reduction in 

permanent and temporary impacts to American badger, while Segment 3B with 

AAAs 3 through 6 would result in a slight increase in permanent and temporary 

impacts to American badger. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 do not result in Segment 6B crossing suitable 

habitat for American badger and no effects would occur. 

Direct Effects to Desert Bighorn Sheep 

The potential effects of each AAA to desert bighorn sheep are summarized below: 

 AAAs 1, 2, 7, and 8: AAAs 1, 2, 7, and 8 do not result in Segment 2A/2B or 

Segment 6B crossing suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep and no effects would 

occur. 

 AAAs 3 through 6: AAAs 3 through 6 would affect portions of Segment 3B 

which cross through suitable habitat for desert bighorn sheep. Constructionrelated activities could directly affect desert bighorn sheep by disrupting lambing 

and by altering the flow of natural springs, which provide critical water supply. 

Desert bighorn sheep could also use the rail corridor for movement and as a result, 

operation of the passenger train could result in the mortality of sheep. With AAAs 

3 through 6, Segment 3B would continue to affect a similar amount of habitat for 

desert bighorn sheep as assumed in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Loss of Special Management Lands 

Implementation of the alignment adjustments would not alter the affected acreage of 

special management lands for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, and Segment 6B. 

 AAAs 1 and 2: Implementation of AAAs 1 and 2 would not alter the affected 

acreage of special management lands for Segment 2A/2B. Segment 2A/2B would 

continue to impact 60.9 acres of Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat.

 AAAs 3 through 6: Implementation of AAAs 3 through 6 would not alter the 

affected acreage of special management lands for Segment 3B. Segment 3B would 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-34 

continue to impact 268.5 acres of Superior-Cronese Desert Tortoise Critical 

Habitat, 225.7 acres of Ivanpah Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat, and 3.6 acres of 

the Cronese ACEC. 

 AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 would not be located within any special 

management lands. Segment 6B with implementation of AAAs 7 and 8 would 

result in no effects to special management lands. 

Direct and Indirect Impacts to Wetlands/Waters of the United States 

The AAAs would not result in any new stream crossings for Segment 2A/2B, Segment 3B, 

and Segment 6B. Segment 2A/2B would cross 16 streams, Segment 3B would cross 117 

streams, and Segment 6B would cross 16 to 18 streams. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

The modification to the Wigwam MSF would not introduce any new direct or indirect 

biological resource effects beyond those described in Section 3.14.4.5 of the Draft EIS. 

Construction and operation of the Wigwam MSF modification could introduce or spread 

noxious weeds; could result in the loss or damage to native vegetation communities; 

impact special-status plant populations; permanently and temporarily impact desert 

tortoise, Mojave fringe-toed lizard, nesting raptors and migratory birds, Clark County 

MSHCP covered reptile species, and burrowing owls; and result in direct and indirect 

impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States. 

Profile Modification 

The Profile Modification would not create any new direct or indirect biological resource 

impacts beyond those previously identified for Segment 3B in Section 3.14.4.5 of the 

Draft EIS as the location of the rail alignment has not changed. Placing the rail alignment 

in a 1.3 mile long retained cut would not foreseeably alter the potential biological 

resources associated with this portion og Segment 3B. Segment 3B with implementation 

of the Profile Modification could continue to introduce or spread noxious weeds; could 

result in the loss or damage to native vegetation communities; result in the loss of 

sensitive vegetation communities; impact special-status plant populations; permanently 

and temporarily impact desert tortoise, Mohave ground squirrel, Mojave fringe-toed 

lizard, nesting raptors and migratory birds, banded gila monster, burrowing owls, roosting 

bats, and American badger; impacts to special management lands; and result in direct and 

indirect impacts to wetlands and Waters of the United States. 

3.14.4 MITIGATION MEASURES

Section 3.14.5 of the Draft EIS included Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO21, which are applicable to the project modifications and additions. The relevant 

mitigation measures from Section 3.14.5 of the Draft EIS are summarized below:

 Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Requires implementation of a mandatory 

environmental awareness training program for all personnel working within the 

project area. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Requires preconstruction surveys for special-
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-35 

status species, to be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of 

construction. Preconstruction surveys for Mohave ground squirrel, Mojave fringetoed lizard, banded gila monster, BLM sensitive and Clark Coounty MSHCP 

covered reptile species, burrowing owls, roosting bats, American badger, desert 

bighorn sheep, sensitive botanical species, and noxious weeds shall be required. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Requires implementation of construction 

monitoring measures. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Requires the implementation of specific measures 

to avoid the dispersal of noxious weed into uninfested areas. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Requires the confinement of construction 

equipment to a designated work zone (including access roads) at each project site. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Requires the reestablishment of preconstruction 

site conditions to allow for revegetation. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Requires the retention and stockpiling of topsoil. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Requires the restoration of natural site 

topography to pre-project contours. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Requires the implementation of erosion control 

measures as part of an erosion control and restoration plan, as appropriate. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Requires a tree or plant removal permit from San 

Bernardino County and the Nevada Division of Forestry and/or the BLM in order 

to relocate succulents within the project alignment. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-11: Compensate for the loss of sensitive vegetation 

communities prior to initiating construction. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-12:2 Requires implementation of preconstruction 

surveys for sensitive vegetation and the identification of sensitive areas. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-13: Requires the avoidance of known special-status 

plant populations during project design. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-14: Requires compensation for adverse effects on 

special-status plant populations, per the direction of the USFWS and CDFG. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-15: Requires the preparation of a desert tortoise 

relocation plan in conjunction with the USFWS Las Vegas and Ventura Ecological 

Services Offices, BLM, NPS, and the CDFG. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-16: Requires the preparation of a final mitigation 

monitoring report for USFWS, BLM, and state agencies. 

 

2 The Draft EIS did not include a Mitigation Measure BIO-12. To correct this error from the Draft EIS, 

Mitigation Measure BIO-13 from the Draft EIS is reflected as Mitigation Measure BIO-12 in this Supplemental 

Draft EIS. Subsequent mitigation measure numbers were revised accordingly. 
DesertXpress 3.14 Biological Resources 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.14-36 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-17: Requires the implementation of mitigation 

measures outlines by the Nevada USFWS ecological services office to protect 

desert tortoise. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-18: Requires the compensation for the permanent 

loss of desert tortoise habitat. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-19: Requires the construction of exclusion fencing 

and culverts to match the existing I-15 or UPRR culverts. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-20: Requires the compensation for the permanent 

loss of Mohave ground squirrel habitat. 

 Mitigation Measure BIO-21: Requires the avoidance of active burrows or the 

passive relocation of owls. 

3.14.5 RESIDUAL IMPACTS FOLLOWING MITIGATION

While the mitigation measures above would mitigate permanent biological resources 

effects related to the construction and operation of the project modifications and 

additions, the modifications and additions would result in the permanent conversion of 

lands identified as sensitive habitat areas to transportation use. 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

Ord-Rodman DWMA

Fremont-Kramer DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

0

Southern California Logistics Airport

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

0

Geografika Consulting 06.07.10

4

5

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Biological Resources (1)

FIG

S-3.14-1
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

Ord-Rodman DWMA Ord-Rodman DWMA

0

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2 Superior-Cronese DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA

67

65

67

69 67

3

3 11

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

0

Geografika Consulting 06.08.10

4

5

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

3

67

69 3

11

28

67

67

65

67

54

Biological Resources (2)

FIG

S-3.14-2
Mojave National

Preserve

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

Shadow Valley DWMA

Ivanpah DWMA

Superior-Cronese DWMA 1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Ivanpah DWMA

79

53 4

6

2

17

49 49

36

36 49 17

49

17

49

49

17

17

34

49 49

49

17

29

49

49

35 36

23

48 36

15

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

Shadow Valley DWMA

4

5

Biological Resources (3)

FIG

S-3.14-3

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

1 inch equals 5 miles NORTH

0 5 2.5

Miles

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

28

15 2

40

48
TCA 14 

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Biological Resources (4)

FIG

S-3.14-4

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles

NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option
TCA 14 

Robindale MSF

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.15.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 7 A

Biological Resources (5)

FIG

S-3.14-5

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005, BLM,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Biological Resources

Sensitive Vegetation Community

Joshua Tree Woodland

Mesquite bosque

Special Status Species*

Plants

Animals

Note: Undeveloped areas below 5000 feet in

elevation are potential Desert Tortoise habitat.

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

Desert Wildlife Management

Area (DWMA)

* See Figure S-3.14-4 for list of species names

1 inch equals 2 miles NORTH

0 2 1

Miles

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications
FIGS-3.14-6

Geografika Consulting 06 .08.10

Visual simulation of Victorville Station 3

DesertXpress -

Supplemental EIS Special Status Species 

Within the Project Region

Plants

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

12

13

15

17

18

19

20

22

23

25

26

28

29

30

31

32

33

35

36

39

40

41

42

44

47

49

86

87

88

89

90

Abert’s sanvitalia

Aven Nelson’s phacelia

Barstow woolly sunflower

Bee-hive cactus

Booth’s evening-primrose

Chaparral sand-verbena

Cima milk-vetch

Cliff brake

Crucifixion thorn

Desert ageratina

Desert pincushion

Gilman’s cymopterus

Hairy erioneuron

Hillside wheat grass

Jaeger’s ivesia

Juniper buckwheat

Knotted rush

Limestone daisy

Many-flowered schkuhria

Mojave monkey flower

Mormon needle grass

Nine-awned pappus grass

Parish’s phacelia

Parish’s popcorn flower

Pungent glassopetalon

Rosy twotone beardtongue

Rusby’s desert-mallow

Scaly cloak fern

Sky-blue phacelia

Small-flowered androstephium

Small-flowered rice grass

Thompsn’s beardtongue

Utah beardtongue

White bear poppy

Las Vegas bear poppy

Las Vegas buckwheat

Las Vegas catseye

Rosy twotone beardtongue

Yellow twotone beardtongue

Animals

52

53

54

57

60

61

62

64

65

67

68

69

70

71

72

75

76

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

91

Baker’s desertsnail

Bendire’s thrasher

Burrowing owl

Coast (San Diego) horned lizard

Gray-headed junco

Gray vireo

Hepatic tanager

Kokoweef Crystal Cave harvestman

Le Conte’s thrasher

Mohave ground squirrel

Mohave river vole

Mohave tui chub

Nelson’s bighorn sheep

Pallid bat

Pallid bat

Saratoga springs pupfish

Silver-haired bat

Summer tanager

Townsend’s big-earted bat

Vermilion flycatcher

Victorville shoulderband

Virginia’s warbler

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Yellow-breasted chat

Spotted bat

Note: Please see Figures S-3.14-1 through S-3.14-5

for the location of the special status species in

relation to the proposed action alternatives.
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-1 

3.15 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

This section discusses the potential impacts of the project modifications and additions on 

resources protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

3.15.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regulations and standards related to Section 4(f) identified in Section 3.15.1.1 of the 

Draft EIS have not changed since publication of the Draft EIS and therefore remain 

applicable to the project modifications and additions. 

Regional Conditions 

Figures S-3.15.1 through S-3.15.5 show the proposed project modifications and 

additions in relation to public park and recreation facilities within the project area. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

The Draft EIS identified two historic architectural resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

project. However, the Draft EIS concluded that there would be no direct use of these 

resources and with mitigation, no constructive use of the resources would occur. 

The project modifications and additions are not located near the historic architectural 

resources identified in the Draft EIS and no new resources are present. The project 

modifications and additions would not change the conclusion that there would be no use 

of historic resources within the project area that qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 

Clean Air Act Class 1 Areas 

The Draft EIS identified eight wilderness and national park resources that, while not being 

directly affected by the proposed action, are located within 100 miles and meet certain 

criteria under the Clean Air Act1

 that qualify these resources as being sensitive to air 

pollution and thus qualifying for protection under Section 4(f): 

 Domeland Wilderness 

 San Gabriel Wilderness 

 San Gorgonio Wilderness 

 Agua Tibia Wilderness 

 San Jacinto Wilderness 

 Cucamonga Wilderness 

 Grand Canyon National Park 

 Joshua Tree National Park 

 

1 42 U.S.C. 7472 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-2 

The project modifications and additions would not substantially alter the air quality 

analysis or conclusions (see Section 3.12, Air Quality, of this Supplemental Draft EIS) 

contained in the Draft EIS. Based on this analysis the Draft EIS concluded that emissions 

from the action alternatives would be greatly dispersed prior to entering the airsheds of 

these resources and would, therefore, not have a substantial impact on the visibility in any 

of these areas. 

Public Parks and Recreational Facilities 

Victorville Station Site 3 

There are no public parks or recreational areas in close proximity to VV3. Figure S3.15.1 shows that the closest such resources are located south of VV1 in the City of 

Victorville. As such, no direct or constructive use of recreational resource properties 

would occur with regard to VV3. 

OMSF 2 

There are no public parks or recreational areas in proximity to OMSF 2. Figure S-3.15.1

shows that the closest such resources are located south of VV1 in the City of Victorville. As 

such, no direct or constructive use of recreational resource properties would occur with 

modification to OMSF 2. 

Segment 2C 

Segment 2C would be located near several public parks and recreation facilities. Figure 

S-13.5-2 shows the locations of these facilities relative to Segment 2C. 

Barstow Heights Park: Barstow Heights Park is an approximately 0.8 acres public 

park located in Barstow at Rimrock Road and H Street. This neighborhood park includes 

a playground and picnic area. 

Dana Park: Dana Park is an approximately 8.8 acre public park located in Barstow to 

the north of I-15 at 850 Barstow Road. Park amenities include a playground, indoor pool, 

and tennis courts. 

Cameron Park: Cameron Park is a small neighborhood public park located just north 

of I-15 within Barstow at the intersection of Yucca Street and Kelly Drive. 

Lillian Park: Lillian Park is an approximately 3.7 acre public park located in Barstow 

north of I-15 at 901 Bigger Street. Park amenities include a picnic area and baseball field. 

John Sturnacle Park: John Sturnacle Park is an approximately 10.4 acre public park 

located in Barstow to the north of I-15 at 1434 Sage Drive. Park amenities include a 

playground, picnic area, baseball field, and basketball court. 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-3 

Foglesong Park: Foglesong Park is an approximately 35 acre park located in Barstow 

to the north of I-15 at 300 Avenue G. Park amenities include a playground, athletic field, 

swimming pool, and picnic area. 

Daha Park: Daha Park is a small neighborhood park located in Barstow just north of I15 at East Virginia Way and Barstow Road. 

H Street Soccer Fields: The H Street Soccer Fields is an approximately 15 acre public 

recreation field located in Barstow just north of I-15 at Avenue H and Vineyard Street. 

Amenities include soccer fields. 

Smith Park2: Smith Park is a neighborhood park located in Yermo to the south of I-15 

at Yermo Road and McCormick Street. 

Hurst Park2: Hurst Park is a neighborhood park located in Yermo to the south of I-15 at 

Yermo Road and Calico Road. 

Segment 4C 

The northern unit of the Mojave National Preserve is located more than one mile to the 

west of Segment 4C. 

Relocated Sloan MSF 

There are no public parks or recreation areas located near the RSMSF site. 

Frias Substation 

Western Trails Park is a public park located near the Frias Substation site. 

Alignment Adjustment Areas 

The Section 4(f) evaluation in the Draft EIS identifies public parks and recreation facilities 

that qualify for protection along the proposed rail corridor. The AAAs involve minor 

modifications to the rail alignment and would not result in direct use, nor indirect use of 

the public parks and recreation facilities qualifying for protection under Section 4(f). 

AAA 1: AAA 1 would shift a portion of Segment 2A/2B near Barstow fewer than 400 feet 

to the south, and incrementally closer to numerous park and recreational facilities in the 

City of Barstow. However, the shift associated would nonetheless keep Segment 2A/2B on 

 

2 The Section 4(f) evaluation within the Draft EIS did not include Smith Park or Hurst Park. Subsequent to 

the Draft EIS publication, it was determined that Smith Park would be in close proximity to Segment 2B and 

thus should have been included in the Draft EIS as a Section 4(f) resource potentially affected by Segment 2B. 

If Segment 2B is selected as part of the Agency Preferred Alternative, the Final EIS will include an evaluation 

of Smith Park relative to Segment 2B. 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-4 

the north side of the Mojave River and thus substantially separate from the various parks 

and recreational facilities within urbanized Barstow. 

AAAs 7 and 8: AAAs 7 and 8 would shift portions of the Segment 6B alignment to the 

outer edge of the I-15 freeway right of way or into the right-of-way associated with 

Industrial Road/South Dean Martin Drive. These minor shifts would move the rail line 

incrementally closer to several parks in the Las Vegas area but the closest public park 

would still be over 1 mile away. 

Wigwam MSF Modification 

Western Trails Park is a public park located near the Wigwam Avenue MSF site. 

Profile Modification 

The Mojave National Preserve is located south of the I-15 freeway in the vicinity of the 

proposed profile modification. 

Cultural Resources 

There is one cultural resource located in close proximity to Segment 2C that could qualify 

for protection under Section 4(f), the Old National Trails Highway (CA-SBR-2910H). In 

addition, there is one cultural resource located in close proximity to the AAAs and Profile 

Modification that could qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 

3.15.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

Section 3.15-4 of the Draft EIS included a preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation, 

developed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303. Following these legislative 

requirements, the Draft EIS’s Section 4(f) evaluation restated the project’s purpose and 

need, described major action alternatives, the project’s use of Section 4(f) resources, 

presented avoidance alternatives, and measures to minimize harm. 

This Supplemental 4(f) evaluation examines the project modifications and additions 

articulated in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of this Supplemental DEIS to determine if 

they would result in the use a Section 4(f) resource. The Final EIS will include a Final 

Section 4(f) evaluation, which examines potential Section 4(f) uses associated with the 

Agency Preferred Alternative. 

3.15.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Each project modifications and addition was evaluated based on the criteria for adverse 

effects related to Section 4(f) Resources as described in Section 3.15.1.1 of the Draft EIS. 

The discussions below consider the potential effects of the project modifications and 

additions to public parks and recreational facilities and cultural resources. 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-5 

Public Parks and Recreation Facilities 

Victorville Station Site 3, OMSF 2, and Relocated Sloan MSF 

There are no public parks or recreation areas located near the VV3, OMSF 2, or RSMSF 

sites. 

Segment 2C 

The closest public park or recreational facility is 0.8 miles away from Segment 2C. As a 

result, Segment 2C would not result in the direct use of any of these facilities. Segment 2C 

would also not result in constructive use of these facilities. The public parks and 

recreational facilities are of sufficient distance from Segment 2C to not be affected by 

noise, dust, or other potential indirect effects that would result in constructive use. 

Segment 4C 

Segment 4C would be located near the northern Clark Mountain unit of the Mojave 

National Preserve. The northern unit of the Preserve is accessible only by off-road vehicle 

or foot. Segment 4C would be located largely atop a plain located at a substantial 

elevation below the mostly rugged terrain of the northern unit of the Preserve. Given the 

distance between Segment 4C and the Preserve as well as local topographic 

considerations, Segment 4C would not result in a direct or constructive use of the 

Preserve. 

Frias Substation, Alignment Adjustment Areas, and Wigwam MSF Modification 

AAA 8, the Wigwam MSF, and the Frias Substation would result in built portions of the 

project being located outside the I-15 corridor. Of these, only the Frias Substation would 

include the addition of a facility to the west of South Dean Martin Drive, a largely 

commercial/industrial corridor paralleling the I-15 freeway and South Las Vegas 

Boulevard throughout much of the Las Vegas metropolitan area. 

Figure S-3.15-5 depicts the location of Western Trails Park in relation to project 

features. Given the distance of this park from the Frias Substation site (over 1 mile to the 

west) no use or constructive use of this resource would occur. 

Profile Modification 

The profile modification would occur on the opposite side of the I-15 freeway from the 

Mojave National Preserve and therefore would not result in direct use of the Preserve. 

Placing the rail alignment in a retained cut would further reduce any potential for 

constructive use of the Preserve as potential noise and visual effects would be further 

reduced. 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-6 

Cultural Resources 

The majority of project modifications and additions will not have any impact on cultural 

resources protected under Section 4(f). However, one of the project modifications and 

additions was designed by the applicant to avoid the use of a 4(f) property by minimizing 

the impact of the project on the integrity of the site. The FRA is consulting with the BLM 

and Native American tribes regarding potential impacts to this site and will make a final 

determination regarding impacts to this site in the Final Section 4(f) evaluation. 

As a result of FRA’s continuing tribal consultation efforts, FRA has determined that the 

disclosure of any information about the location, character, or ownership of the property 

may risk harm to the resource. Therefore, FRA is withholding additional information that 

has the potential to disclose the location or character of the resource. 

3.15.4 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

The proposed project modifications and additions would not affect the conclusion in 

Section 3.15.4 of the Draft EIS Section 4(f) evaluation regarding avoidance alternatives. 

Other than the No Action alternative, there are no feasible and prudent alternatives that 

would avoid all Section 4(f) resources. 

Alternative Development Process 

As documented in Section 3.15.5 of the Draft EIS Section 4(f) evaluation, several 

alignment alternatives were studied by the Applicant and were rejected from further 

consideration using standardized technical and environmental criteria. These criteria were 

developed largely by the Applicant. The process used by the applicant to evaluate 

conceptual alignment alternatives and to make feasibility and practicability determinations 

in consultation with the Lead and Cooperating agencies during the environmental review 

process is further described in the Draft EIS (see Chapter 2, Alternatives). 

As noted above, certain project modifications and additions were proposed by the Applicant 

subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS in order to present additional alternatives that 

would, among other things, avoid or minimize the potential for a Section 4(f) use to occur. 

For example, Segment 4C provides a routing alternative through the Clark Mountain area 

that would avoid the direct Section 4(f) use associated with Segment 4A. Additional 

modifications have been proposed to avoid and minimize impacts to cultural resource sites. 

3.15.5 LEAST HARM ANALYSIS AND CONCLUDING STATEMENT

Under Section 4(f), the determination of least overall harm will evaluate and balance the 

following factors: 

 The ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f) property; 
 

DesertXpress 3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.15-7 

 The relative severity of the remaining harm, after mitigation, to the protected 

activities, attributes, or features that qualify each Section 4(f) property for 

protection; 

 The relative significance of each Section 4(f) property; 

 The views of the officials with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f) property; 

 The degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project; 

 After reasonable mitigation, the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not 

protected by Section 4(f); and 

 Substantial differences in costs among the alternatives. 

The Final EIS will include a final Section 4(f) evaluation that examines the Agency 

Preferred Alternative and any Section 4(f) uses that may result. The final evaluation will 

incorporate input from the agencies and members of the public during circulation of the 

Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS, as well as from the outcome of the Section 106 

consultation process. 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Rockview Park

Grady Trammel Park

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

4

5

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

Section 4(f) Resources (1)

FIG

S-3.15-1
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Hurst

Park

Smith

Park

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Sturnacle

Park Lillian

Park

Cameron Park

Daha

Park

Dana

Park

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Foglesong

Park

H Street

Soccer Fields

Barstow

Heights Park

Daha Park

Dana Park

Lillian Park

Cameron Park

Sturnacle

Park

Stringham

Park

Geografika Consulting 06.016.10

4

5 Las Vegas

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, 

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

Section 4(f) Resources (2)

FIG

S-3.15-2
Mojave National

Preserve

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Mojave National

Preserve

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5 Las Vegas

Section 4(f) Resources (3)

FIG

S-3.15-3

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

1 inch equals 5 miles

NORTH

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

0 6 3

Kilometers

0 5 2.5

Miles
TCA 14 Stonewater Park

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities

Section 4(f) Resources (4)

FIG

S-3.15-4
TCA 14 

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Robindale MSF

Stonewater Park

Western

Trails Park

Bob Baskin Park

Mary Dutton Park

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Western

Trails

Park

Segment 7 A

Section 4(f) Resources (5)

FIG

S-3.15-5

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2.5 1.25

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications

Public Parks and

Recreation Facilities
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-1 

3.16 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

This chapter summarizes the potential cumulative physical and growth-related 

environmental consequences associated with the project modifications and additions. 

3.16.1 RELATED PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

Past Activities and Actions 

Past activities and projects described in the cumulative analysis within Section 3.16.2 of 

the Draft EIS are considered as part of this analysis. Over the past decade, numerous past 

projects, such as residential, industrial, commercial, or service area projects, have been 

completed and developed as a result of the rapid urbanization in Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Between Victorville and Las Vegas, the trend in urbanization has not been as rapid, with a 

limited number of isolated projects between the two cities. The action alternatives 

evaluated in the Draft EIS as well as the project modifications and additions were 

designed considering the location of these past projects, so as to limit disruption or 

displacement where possible. These past projects are part of the existing environmental 

conditions and establish a baseline for the potentially affected environment. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Present and Future Actions and Projects 

Section 3.16.3 of the Draft EIS presented information describing the reasonably 

foreseeable present and future actions considered in the cumulative analysis. Since 

publication of the Draft EIS, several new transportation improvement projects have been 

identified within Clark County and are discussed in this section under the heading 

“Transportation Projects.” No new reasonably foreseeable present or future project 

related to parks, recreation, or natural preservation; development; energy; or public 

utilities have been identified within the project region since publication of the Draft EIS. 

Summaries of all reasonably foreseeable present and future actions considered in the 

cumulative analysis are provided below. 

Figures S-3.16-1 through S-3.16-5 show the location of the reasonably foreseeable 

present and future projects in relation to the project modifications and additions. The 

related present and future projects are summarized below. 

Transportation Projects 

Interstate 15 Capacity Improvements –Caltrans and NDOT are planning for future 

highway improvements along I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas. Figures S-3.16-1

through S-3.16-5 show the location of the I-15 capacity improvements. The Caltrans 

improvements include widening the I-15 bridge over the Mojave River, several interchange 

modifications, widening portions of the I-15 freeway to increase capacity, and the addition 

of truck lanes near Mountain Pass. 

NDOT is proposing several improvements and projects along the I-15 corridor, 

including the NEON project and the I-15 South project, which involve the 

reconstruction of existing interchanges, local access improvements, a High-
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-2 

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane connecting I-15 to US 95, construction of new 

interchanges. Other planned capacity improvements on the I-15 freeway between 

I-215 and US 95 include: 

o I-15 from California state line to Sloan Road: widen from 6 to 8 lanes 

o I-15 from Sloan Road to Blue Diamond Road (6 lanes to 10 lanes) 

o I-15 between I-215 and I-515: widen from 10 to 14 lanes (preliminary 

engineering) 

o I-15 between Russell Road and Sahara Avenue: widen from 8 to 10 lanes 

(preliminary engineering and right-of-way acquisition) 

New Roadways intersecting I-15 or the proposed rail alignment: 

o Starr Avenue: construction of a 6 lane roadway from I-15 to St. Rose 

Parkway (Clark County) 

o I-15 at I-215: construction of new direct connector high-occupancy vehicle 

ramps (Clark County) 

Interstate 15 Joint Point of Entry – This project proposes the construction of a 

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility and an Agricultural Inspection Facility between 

Nipton Road and Yates Road on southbound I-15 just south of the California-Nevada state 

line. Figure S-3.16-5 shows the location of the Joint Point of Entry project. 

California High Speed Rail – This project is a proposed high-speed rail system in 

California. The high-speed train system would serve Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay 

Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. 

Due to the proposed distance of the California High Speed Rail and the number of 

alignment options, this future project is not shown on a figure. 

Supplemental Commercial Airport in Ivanpah Valley – This project would involve the 

construction of a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley, just south of Las Vegas, to serve as a 

supplement facility to the existing McCarran airport in Las Vegas. Figure S-3.16-6

shows the location of the proposed airport. 

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport – The Clark County Department of Aviation 

(CCDOA) has proposed a new heliport site just south of Sloan to the west of I-15. Figure 

S-3.16-6 shows the location of the proposed helipad. 

 Intermodal Transport Terminal near Downtown Las Vegas – This project would 

be located north of the northernmost DesertXpress passenger station option 

(Downtown Las Vegas). Should this Terminal be constructed, it would be 

complementary to DesertXpress service in providing train passengers with 

connections to local transit services. 

 Las Vegas Managed Lanes Demonstration Project – This is a trial project of high 

occupancy toll (HOT) lanes on I-15 from the intersection of I-215 in the south to 

north of Downtown Las Vegas, and beyond the proposed terminus of the 

DesertXpress project) 

The California-Nevada Interstate Maglev Train - This project proposes to construct a 

new rail line using magnetic levitation technology between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-3 

as a segment of the high-speed MAGLEV system between Las Vegas, Nevada, and 

Anaheim, California. Congress provided $45 million through Section 102 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 

109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, August 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU) as amended by the SAFETEA-LU 

Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-244, 122 Stat. 1572, June 6, 2008) to 

fund deployment of a maglev project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada. NDOT is 

working with FRA to define the scope of work for a funding agreement to support the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement analyzing the impacts associated with 

the proposed Maglev project. 

Parks, Recreation, or Natural Preservation Projects 

West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan – The BLM has proposed the West Mojave 

Coordinated Management Plan to define a regional strategy for conserving plant and 

animal species and their habitats. The plan would also define an efficient, equitable, and 

cost-effective process for complying with regulations and policies related to threatened 

and endangered species (i.e., Endangered Species Act), such as desert tortoise and 

Mohave ground squirrel. The plan area would cover approximately 9.4 million acres of 

public land managed by the BLM. Due to the large expanse covered under this plan, this 

area is not shown on a figure. 

Mixed-Use Recreation – Ivanpah Dry Lake – This project would allow for the continued 

issuance of Casual Use permits and Permitted and Organized event permits in the Ivanpah 

Dry Lake area. Figure S-3.16-5 shows the location of the Mixed-Use Recreation area. 

Development Projects 

North Triangle Specific Plan – This plan is proposed within the North Mojave Plan area 

in Victorville. The North Triangle Specific Plan anticipates the inclusion of transportation 

related facilities, such as the Victorville passenger station and OMSF. Figure S-3.16-1

shows the location of the North Triangle Specific Plan. 

Mixed-Use Development – Jean– This project would involve the development of 

approximately 166 acres near Jean. The project would develop a mixed-use community, 

including affordable housing, commercial business, retail, and a new hotel and casino. 

Figure S-3.16-6 shows the location of this mixed-used development.

 Fast Food Restaurant Development – Primm– This project would involve the 

development of a fast food restaurant in Primm. Figure S-3.16-5 shows the 

location of this development. 

Energy Projects 

BLM Solar and Wind Energy Projects –BLM has received several proposals for solar 

energy and wind energy projects in the California Desert. The Ivanpah Solar Electric 

Generating System project is one of the solar energy projects under consideration. 

Figures S-3.16-4 and S-3.16-5 show the location of the proposed energy projects. 

Ivanpah Energy Center – The Ivanpah Energy Center would be located in Primm on the 

east side of I-15 and would include the development of a 500- Mw gas-turbine combinedcycle power plant. Figure S-3.16-5 shows the location of this energy center. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-4 

Primm Solar Generating Plant – The Primm Solar Generating Plant project would involve 

the construction of a 250 Mw solar trough plant on approximately 2,500 acres in Primm. 

Figure S-3.16-5 shows the location of this solar generating plant. 

Public Utilities Projects 

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan CalNev Pipeline System – Kinder Morgan is proposing the 

addition of a third gasoline pipeline alongside the two existing pipelines that currently 

comprise the CalNev pipeline system from southern California to Las Vegas. Figures S3.16-1 though S-3.16-7 show the location of the Kinder Morgan CalNev Pipeline. 

Ivanpah Substation – Southern California Edison (SCE) has proposed to construct a new 

Ivanpah Substation sized to accommodate 230/115 kV facilities. Figure S-3.16-5 shows 

the location of this substation. 

3.16.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

NEPA regulations and standards related to cumulative impacts have not changed since 

publication of the Draft EIS. A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the 

environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

(federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts may 

result from individually minor actions by collectively significant actions taking place over 

a defined period of time.1

The same methodology and regulations and standards pertinent to the analysis of 

cumulative effects as identified in Section 3.16.1 of the Draft EIS was used to evaluate 

the potential cumulative effects associated with the implementation of the project 

modifications and additions. The analysis focuses on determining if the proposed project 

modifications and additions would alter the analysis or conclusions regarding cumulative 

effects contained in the Draft EIS. 

3.16.3 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Land Use and Community Impacts 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis for land use and community impacts considered in 

Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS includes San Bernardino County and Clark County. As 

concluded in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS, the DesertXpress project, in combination 

with the cumulative projects, would further the land use trend of concentrating urban land 

uses (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) within Victorville and Las Vegas. As the 

DesertXpress project does not propose significant land use changes along the rail 

alignment, the related projects between Victorville and Las Vegas (i.e., the energy projects, 

public utilities projects, and transportation project) would maintain the slow trend of land 

 

1 40 CFR 1508.8(b) 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-5 

use changes in this generally undeveloped area. Since the construction of the 

DesertXpress project would occur primarily within existing freeway or railroad rights-ofway, except at the proposed station and maintenance facility sites, and since the land use 

effects resulting from the DesertXpress project and the related projects would be site and 

project-specific the cumulative impacts related to land use and community would not be 

substantial. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

VV3 would be located outside of the North Triangle Specific Plan area, which could foster 

urban development outside of the central Victorville area. Segment 4C would avoid land 

use conflicts associated with Segment 4A which include the Mojave National Preserve and 

the Joint Port of Entry project site. Segment 4C would avoid land use conflicts associated 

with Segment 4B which include the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project site. 

Segment 4C would therefore reduce the overall cumulative effect to conflicts with adjacent 

land uses. 

Overall, implementation of the project modifications and additions would not 

substantially alter the cumulative conclusions contained in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft 

EIS. The DesertXpress project with the modifications and additions, in combination with 

the related projects would not result in a cumulative impact to land use and the 

community. 

Growth 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

Cumulative growth effects were evaluated on a county-wide basis (within San Bernardino 

County and Clark County). Both San Bernardino County and Clark County are expected to 

experience population, household, and employment growth through 2030. The 

DesertXpress project in combination with the transportation improvement and 

development projects could contribute to growth in San Bernardino County and Clark 

County. Cumulatively, the DesertXpress project in combination with the related 

transportation projects could increase the number of visitors to the Las Vegas area, but 

would not necessarily result in a new permanent population or housing stock. The 

DesertXpress project would contribute less than one percent of the anticipated 

employment growth in San Bernardino County and Clark County and would not result in a 

cumulative impact to employment growth. Overall, cumulative effects to growth would 

not be substantial. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

Implementation of the project modifications and additions would not change the direct 

and indirect growth effects described in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS. The 

modifications and additions alter the locations and/or sizes of the station and 

maintenance facilities but do not change the program of their expected uses or 

employment capacity. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-6 

Farmlands/Agricultural Lands 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area considered for cumulative impacts to farmlands includes only San Bernardino 

County, as no farmlands or grazing lands are present in the project region within Clark 

County. 

As concluded in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS, the DesertXpress project in 

combination with the future widening and capacity improvements to I-15 near Victorville 

and Barstow, the North Triangle Specific Plan, and the California High Speed Rail project, 

as well as other projects and development in San Bernardino County, would continue the 

regional trend of converting farmland and grazing land to non-agricultural use. However, 

in relation to San Bernardino County’s annual farmland conversion rate, the amount of 

important farmland affected by the project would be less than one percent of total 

conversions. Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS concluded that the DesertXpress project 

would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative farmland effects, as specific 

farmland and grazing land impacts would be mitigated. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not change the cumulative effects to 

farmland and grazing land identified in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS. Similar to VV2, 

VV3 would be located within a BLM grazing allotment and would result in the permanent 

conversion of grazing lands to transportation use. Segment 4C would also be located 

within a designated grazing allotment, similar to Segment 4B, and could affect grazing 

activities. However, these effects would be similar to those identified in Section 3.3.4.2

of the Draft EIS. Conversely, implementation of the Segment 2C would reduce impacts to 

farmland and grazing land because it would be located within the I-15 freeway corridor 

rather than undeveloped lands which Segment 2A/2B would cross. Overall, the project 

modifications and additions would not affect the cumulative farmland and grazing land 

effects identified in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS. 

Utilities and Emergency Services 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area considered for cumulative effects related to utilities and emergency services in 

Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS includes the utility and emergency service provider 

service areas. As concluded in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS, the DesertXpress project 

in combination with the related transportation and development projects would place 

additional demand on the existing public utilities and service providers. These projects 

would cumulatively affect the capacity of the existing public utilities and the ability of 

service provides to provide adequate levels of service. Conversely, public utility projects, 

such as the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan CalNev Pipeline and the development of the 

Ivanpah Substation would increase the capacity of existing utilities which could serve the 

DesertXpress project and other cumulative developments. Since the DesertXpress project 

incorporates mitigation requirements to reduce effects related to utilities and emergency 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-7 

services and that the future projects would be required to undergo a similar environmental 

review process, the cumulative impact related to public utilities in San Bernardino County 

and Clark County would be negligible. 

The DesertXpress project in combination with development of the related projects could 

also result in utility infrastructure conflicts, such as crossing overhead electric 

transmission lines or underground utility mains. Coordination with local utility providers 

would be required for the DesertXpress project and the cumulative development projects, 

thereby reducing the cumulative effects related to utility crossings. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

Regarding water, wastewater, and stormwater services, the project modifications and 

additions would not change the cumulative analysis contained in Section 3.16.4 of the 

Draft EIS. The project modifications and additions would not alter the water demands, 

wastewater generation, or stormwater runoff of the project as a whole. 

However, based on additional consultation with the Victorville Water District (VWD) 

following publication of the Draft EIS, VWD clarified that the construction of VV2, VV3, 

and OMSF 2 would not be adequately served by existing water facilities due to their 

distance from existing water mains. In combination with development associated with the 

North Triangle Specific Plan, the Victorville Station site options and OMSF 2 could 

cumulatively contribute to the need for additional water facilities to adequately serve the 

area. As stated in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS, a Water Supply Assessment would be 

required to determine the size and extent of the new water facilities needed, which would 

mitigate the effects of the DesertXpress project to water services and facilities. With this 

mitigation, the project modifications and additions would not alter the cumulative effects 

related to water, wastewater, and stormwater service providers and cumulative effects 

would remain negligible. 

Implementation of Segment 4C would result in slightly greater effects related to 

emergency services as compared to Segment 4A or Segment 4B. Portions of Segment 4C 

are more remote which would affect the ability to access and respond quickly in the event 

of an emergency. Segment 4C, in combination with the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating 

System project, would create a cumulative need for basic emergency services in this 

otherwise undeveloped area. Thus, the cumulative effects on emergency services would be 

slightly greater with Segment 4C. 

Regarding utility conflicts, implementation of the project modifications and additions 

would not result in a substantial change to the nature or number of utility infrastructure 

crossings considered in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Draft EIS. Cumulative effects would 

remain negligible. 

Traffic 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis considered in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS includes 

transportation corridors between Southern California and Las Vegas, such as the I-15 

freeway mainline and surrounding local roadways. As stated in Section 3.16.4 of the 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-8 

Draft EIS, the DesertXpress project in combination with the related transportation and 

development projects would cumulatively affect traffic in the area of cumulative analysis. 

Along the I-15 freeway corridor, the DesertXpress project in combination with the I-15 

transportation improvements would improve traffic conditions on I-15 in year 2030, 

thereby resulting in a beneficial cumulative impact. However, the DesertXpress project in 

combination with the related development projects within Victorville and Las Vegas would 

result in adverse cumulative effects to study intersections near the station site options. 

The adverse cumulative effects would be isolated at the DesertXpress project termini. 

Mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5.5 of the Draft EIS would lessen the adverse 

effects related to traffic as a result of the DesertXpress project. It is also anticipated that 

the agencies responsible for review, approval, and permitting of the related projects would 

require similar mitigation to alleviate potential adverse traffic effects. As such, the 

cumulative impact of the related projects in combination with the DesertXpress project 

would not be substantial. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not change the overall beneficial effect of 

the project which would reduce mainline traffic on the I-15 freeway, as the project would 

continue to be located within the same region and would continue to provide high-speed 

passenger train service between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

Regarding cumulative traffic effects at local intersections, Section 3.5, Traffic and 

Transportation, of this Supplemental Draft EIS contains analysis of the cumulative 

traffic impacts associated with VV3. 

Visual Resources 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis for effects related to visual resources includes the 

viewshed, or the visible environment, surrounding the DesertXpress project. The 

DesertXpress project in combination with the related projects would result in a cumulative 

impact to visual resources. The DesertXpress project and the related projects would also 

cumulatively contribute to an overall increase in light and glare in the area of cumulative 

analysis. While cumulative development would introduce new urban visual features into 

the open, expansive undeveloped areas between Victorville and Las Vegas, cumulative 

visual effects would be isolated to the viewshed in the related projects’ sites. Thus, the 

cumulative impact of the transportation, development, and energy projects in 

combination with the DesertXpress project would not be substantial. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

VV3 and Segment 4C would introduce new facilities in areas not previously analyzed from 

a cumulative visual perspective. VV3 would spread urban development further into the 

undeveloped area between Victorville and Barstow. Due to the presence of overhead 

electric transmission lines, the I-15 freeway, and periodic billboards, the addition of VV3 

would not substantially detract from the existing landscape. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-9 

Similar to Segment 4B, Segment 4C would combine with the Ivanpah Solar Electric 

Generating System and would introduce prominent man-made elements into the 

otherwise largely undeveloped visual landscape. Since the Ivanpah Solar Electric 

Generating System would have a larger, concentrated footprint, implementation of 

Segment 4C would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative visual change. 

Additionally, views of this area would be limited and would only be distantly visible from 

wilderness areas of the Mojave National Preserve or peaks of the Clark Mountains. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of the DesertXpress project with the project modifications 

and additions and related projects would not be substantial. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis for effects related to cultural resources includes the 

identified historic and archeological sites within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). 

Cumulative impacts to historical, archeological, and paleontological resources can occur 

when development of an area results in the removal of a substantial number of historic 

structures or archeological sites that when taken in combination could degrade the 

physical historical record of an area. While impacts associated with cultural resources 

tend to be limited to individual project sites and do not generally result in substantial 

cumulative impacts, the DesertXpress project in combination with the capacity 

improvements to I-15, the Joint Port of Entry project, and wind energy projects would 

result in cumulative impacts to such resources. The action alternatives evaluated in the 

Draft EIS would cross through the same lands identified for the use of these projects, 

which could combine to further degrade or damage recorded or unknown cultural and 

paleontological resources within the vicinity. The DesertXpress project includes site 

specific mitigation measures to reduce effects to cultural and paleontological resources 

and would thereby not have a considerable contribution to the overall cumulative effect. 

Cumulative Effects With Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

Similar to the action alternatives identified in the Draft EIS, the project modifications and 

additions, when combined with the related projects, could cumulatively affect cultural and 

paleontological resources within the area of cumulative analysis. For example, Segment 

2C could combine with the I-15 capacity improvement projects to affect cultural or 

paleontological resources. However, the same mitigation measures as identified in 

Section 3.7.5 of the Draft EIS would be applied to the project modifications and 

additions to reduce adverse effects related to recorded and unknown cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

Hydrology 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area considered for cumulative effects to hydrology and water quality includes the 

watersheds affected by the DesertXpress project. As stated in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft 

EIS, the DesertXpress project in combination with the past, present, and future 

transportation, development, public utility, and energy projects would cumulatively effect 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-10 

hydrology and water quality within the area of cumulative analysis due to the crossing of 

existing drainages, streams, and channels. The cumulative development could also 

contribute to the increase in impervious surfaces in the region, thereby resulting in 

additional stormwater runoff. Construction activities associated with the DesertXpress 

project and the related projects could also result in cumulative effects to water quality, as 

contaminants or sedimentation could be released into nearby waterways. The related 

projects located within the 100-year floodplain, such as the Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport, could also combine with the DesertXpress project to cumulatively 

affect the floodplain. However, the DesertXpress project includes site specific mitigation 

measures, such as compliance with NPDES permit requirements, the use of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), proper design of drainage facilities, and reducing 

encroachment to the 100-year floodplain. With implementation of these mitigation 

measures, the DesertXpress project would not considerably contribute to the cumulative 

impacts to hydrology and water quality. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not substantially change the cumulative 

effects related to stormwater runoff and impacts to water resources. Construction and 

operation of VV3 in combination with the related transportation improvements along the 

I-15 corridor could result in additional cumulative effects to water quality and drainage 

patterns, as VV3 would impact a branch of Bell Mountain Wash not previously bisected by 

VV1 or VV2. VV3 would also result in more impervious surface than VV1 or VV2, which 

could cumulatively combine with the related projects and result in a slight increase in 

cumulative effects related to stormwater runoff. Segment 4C would also result in a longer 

rail alignment than Segment 4A or Segment 4B, which could also increase the cumulative 

stormwater runoff when combined with the anticipated runoff of the related projects. 

However, the same site specific mitigation measures in Section 3.8.5 of the Draft EIS 

would be applied to the project modifications and additions to reduce effects to hydrology 

and water effects. Even with implementation of the project modifications and additions, 

the DesertXpress project would not have a considerable contribution to the overall 

cumulative effect related to hydrology and water quality. 

Geology and Soils 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area considered for cumulative effects related to geology and soils includes the seismic 

fault zones that underlie the DesertXpress project alternatives. Geotechnical impacts 

related to the DesertXpress project in combination with past, present, and future projects 

in the area of cumulative analysis would involve hazards associated with site-specific soil 

conditions, erosion, and ground shaking during earthquakes which could expose 

individuals to risk. The impacts for each cumulative project would be specific to each site 

and would not be common to contribute to (or shared with, in an additive sense) the 

impacts on other sites. Thus, no cumulative impacts would occur. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-11 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not change the nature of the project’s 

geologic impacts, since the modifications and additions would be located within the same 

project region and would be exposed to the same geologic and seismic hazards as 

identified in Section 3.9.4.3 of the Draft EIS. 

Hazardous Materials 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis considered for hazardous materials effects includes the 

properties of moderate to high environmental concern identified within a 1/8-mile radius 

around the DesertXpress project. Environmental effects related to hazardous materials 

generally occur on a site-specific basis and do not cumulatively combine with other related 

projects. The related projects within close proximity to the DesertXpress project are 

generally geographically disperse and it is not anticipated that they would use quantities of 

hazardous materials that would combine in such a way to endanger human or 

environmental health. Hazardous materials are also strictly regulated by state and federal 

laws to ensure that they do not result in a gradual toxification of the environment. 

Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any cumulative effects related to 

hazards or hazardous materials. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would be located within the same regional 

environment considered for the cumulative analysis in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS 

and would not introduce any new effects related to hazards or hazardous materials than 

the action alternatives evaluated in Section 3.10.4.2 of the Draft EIS. Since impacts 

related to hazards and hazardous materials are site specific in nature, implementation of 

the project modifications and additions in combination with the related projects would not 

result in any cumulative effects, consistent with the conclusion in Section 3.16.4 of the 

Draft EIS.

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis considered for air quality effects includes the Mojave 

Desert Air Basin in California and the Clark County Air Basin in Nevada. The 

DesertXpress project in combination with the related transportation, development, 

energy, and public utility projects would cumulatively contribute to air quality and 

greenhouse gas effects. However, the DesertXpress project would not substantially 

contribute to the cumulative impact, as operation of the either the EMU or DEMU 

technology options would not exceed criteria pollutant emissions standards within either 

affected air basin, with the exception of NOx emissions under the DEMU technology 

option. Mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce construction and 

operational air quality impacts. Thus, the DesertXpress project would not considerably 

contribute to the cumulative effect related to air quality and global climate change. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-12 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

Implementation of the project modifications and additions would not result in a change to 

the anticipated ridership or train technology options considered in Section 3.11.4.2 of 

the Draft EIS. Therefore, the modifications and additions would not affect the anticipated 

criteria air pollutant or greenhouse gas emission effects identified in Section 3.11.4.2 of 

the Draft EIS. The DesertXpress project, with implementation of the project 

modifications and additions, would continue to improve air quality and would reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions in the respective air basins due to the anticipated transportation 

mode shift from automobile traffic to high-speed passenger train. Segment 2C would be 

shorter than the combination of Segment 1 and either Segment 2A or Segment 2B and 

would therefore require less construction activity, which would reduce construction period 

air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, construction of Segment 4C would 

require slightly greater construction activities than Segment 4A or Segment 4B due to 

increased tunneling and an increased length in the rail alignment. However, overall air 

pollutant emissions would be reduced with implementation of the DesertXpress project 

and would not have a considerable contribution to the cumulative air quality or 

greenhouse gas effects. 

Noise and Vibration 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area for cumulative analysis includes a 1⁄4-mile radius from the DesertXpress project. 

As noise attenuates with distance, significant noise impacts are not anticipated beyond the 

1⁄4-mile radius. The DesertXpress project in combination with the related transportation, 

development, and energy projects would increase noise and vibration levels in urbanized 

areas along the rail alignment, including Victorville, Lenwood, Barstow, Yermo, and 

southern Las Vegas, resulting in potentially adverse cumulative effects. Recommended 

mitigation measures for the DesertXpress project would lessen the adverse effects of the 

project related to noise and vibration. It is reasonable to assume that similar mitigation 

measures would be applied to the related projects to reduce potentially adverse effects and 

that each project would be required under separate environmental review to evaluate the 

existing noise environment and whether such development would exceed the established 

noise and vibration level standards. Nonetheless, when taken collectively, the 

DesertXpress project in combination with the related projects would result in a cumulative 

increase in noise and vibration within in the area of cumulative analysis. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not change the cumulative analysis as the 

project would continue to result in an overall increase in noise and vibration levels within 

the area of cumulative analysis. The project modifications and additions would not 

introduce new sources of noise not previously considered. The project modifications and 

additions would change the location of specific noise and vibration effects. However, the 

nature of the noise and vibration impacts would remain the same and the same types of 

mitigation from Section 3.12.7 of the Draft EIS would be applied. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-13 

Energy 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of analysis for cumulative effects related to energy includes California and 

Nevada, specifically San Bernardino County and Clark County. The DesertXpress project 

in combination with the related transportation, development, public utility, and energy 

projects would result in cumulative impacts related to energy and electricity consumption. 

While the transportation projects, such as the I-15 capacity improvements, SNSA, and 

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, would contribute to an increase in transportation 

energy consumption. Conversely, the California High Speed Rail and the proposed energy 

projects could have a positive effect on energy consumption and generation. Operation of 

the DesertXpress project would constitute less than one percent of the projected statewide 

electricity demand in California and Nevada and would reduce overall energy 

consumption in effecting a substantial mode shift from automobile to train. Mitigation to 

reduce construction period energy use, such as an energy conservation plan, would also be 

applied. As such, the DesertXpress project would not considerably contribute to the 

overall cumulative energy effect. 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not change the anticipated ridership or 

train technology options considered in Section 3.13.4.2 of the Draft EIS. Since the 

cumulative analysis related to energy in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS was based on the 

train technology options and ridership levels, the project modifications and additions 

would not alter the conclusion in Section 3.16.4 of the Draft EIS and the DesertXpress 

project would continue to not considerably contribute to the overall cumulative energy 

effect. 

Biological Resources 

Summary of Cumulative Effects Identified in Draft EIS 

The area of cumulative analysis includes the areas and site of identified biological 

resources within a 400-foot-wide corridor surrounding the DesertXpress project. The 

DesertXpress project in combination with the related projects would result in the 

conversion of open space lands to developed land, contributing to the loss of ruderal 

habitats, wetland habitats, and other biological resources in the area of cumulative 

analysis. Transportation, development, energy, and public utility projects would 

cumulatively affect plant and animal species, including desert tortoise, Mohave ground 

squirrel, and numerous special-status plant species. Conversely, the West Mojave 

Coordinated Management Plan would provide a regional strategy for conserving plant and 

animal species in the area of cumulative analysis. Recommended mitigation measures for 

the DesertXpress project have lessened the adverse effects related to biological resources. 

Nonetheless, the DesertXpress project would result in the permanent conversion of 

biological resources to transportation use and would have a considerable contribution to 

the overall cumulative effect. 
DesertXpress 3.16 Cumulative Impacts

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.16-14 

Cumulative Effects with Implementation of Project Modifications and Additions 

The project modifications and additions would not substantially change the overall 

cumulative effect to biological resources. 

Segments 4C would result in slightly greater effects to desert tortoise habitat and sensitive 

vegetation communities than Segment 4A or Segment 4B evaluated in the Draft EIS. 

Segment 2C would follow the existing I-15 corridor rather than traversing through 

undeveloped lands as would Segment 2A/2B, and would result in a slight reduction in 

impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, including desert tortoise and Mohave 

ground squirrel. 

Although the acreage of affected biological resources would be slightly altered with 

implementation of the project modifications and additions, no new species would be 

impacted. The DesertXpress project would continue to result in the permanent 

conversion of biological resources to transportation use and would continue to have a 

considerable contribution to the overall cumulative effect. 

3.16.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS RELATED TO THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the 

DesertXpress project, nor any of the project modifications and additions evaluated as part 

of this Supplemental Draft EIS. Therefore, the same cumulative effects associated with 

the related projects as documented in Section 3.16.4.1 of the Draft EIS would continue 

to occur. 
Segment 2C

Victorville Station

Site 3A/3B

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Barstow

Apple Valley

Adelanto

Victorville

Oro

Grande

(Formerly George Air Force Base)

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2A / 2B

Note: Segments 1

and 2A/2B are one

common alignment

which would be used

under Alternative A

or Alternative B.

North Triangle Specific

Plan Area

Energy Project

CAC 046623

Energy Project

CAC 046805

Edwards Air Force Base

Southern California Logistics Airport

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (1)

FIG

S-3.16-1

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Segment 2C

Note: The black dashed line

represents the extent of the

median option for Segment 2C.

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Segment 1

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Note: Segments 1

and 2A/2B are one

common alignment

which would be used

under Alternative A

or Alternative B.

Segment 2B

Energy Project

CAC 046804

Energy Project

CAC 049052

Energy Projects

CAC 046803 /

CAC 046881

Energy Project

CAC 046623

Energy Project

CAC 046805

Energy Project

CAC 047454

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

Black Mountain Wilderness

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (2)

FIG

S-3.16-2

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Alignment

Adjustment

Areas 3, 4 & 5

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Energy Project

CAC 049052

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles

N

O

R

T

H

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (3)

FIG

S-3.16-3

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA NEVADA 4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Alignment

Adjustment

Areas 3, 4 & 5

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 6

Profile

Modification

Area

Baker

Halloran

Springs

Energy Project

CAC 048741

Wilderness Area 4

Wilderness

Area

7

Wilderness

Area

5

Wilderness Area 6

Wilderness Are

Mojave National Preserve

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Hollow Hills Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (4)

FIG

S-3.16-4

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Segment 4B

Primm

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4C

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Port of Entry Site

(Approximate

Location)

Energy Project

CAC 648669

ISEGS

Project

Site

Energy Project

CAC 648668

Wilderness Area 3

Wilderness Area 7

Wilderness Area 6

Wilderness

Area 11

Fast Food Restaurant

Ivanpah Energy Center

Primm Solar

Generating Plant

Mixed Use/

Recreation

Ivanpah Substation

(Approximate

Location) Wind Energy Project 

CACA 44236

(Approximate

Location)

Wind Energy Project

CACA 44988 

(Approximate

Location)

Mojave National Preserve

Mesquite Wilderness

Kingston Range Wilderness

Stateline Wilderness North Mesquite Mountains Wilderness

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (5)

FIG

S-3.16-5

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and 

Utility Corridor

Primm

Jean

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Proposed Ivanpah

Airport Site

Mixed Use 

Development

Fast Food Restaurant

Ivanpah Energy Center

North McCullough Mountains Wilderness Study Area

South McCullough Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Stateline Wilderness

Toiyabe National Forest

Mesquite Wilderness

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 6 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (6)

FIG

S-3.16-6

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Frias Substation

Wigwam MSF Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

Proposed Southern Nevada

Regional Heliport

(Approximate Location)

Lake Mead

North McCullough Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Lake Mead National Recreation Area

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area

La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Toiyabe National Forest

Nellis Air Force Base

0 3 1.5

Miles

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 7 of 7

Legend

1 inch equals 2.5 miles NORTH

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, NAIP,

CirclePoint 2008, Clark County Department of

Aviation Website 2008

Potential Cumulative Projects (7)

FIG

S-3.16-7

Source: Geografika Consulting 06.10.10

40

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

4

5

6

7

Note: Please refer to Appendix A of the DEIS and

Appendix S-A of the SDEIS, which includes

plan and profile drawings at 1"1000’, seven foldout maps depicting the DesertXpress project in

full, and detailed site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Potential Cumulative Projects

Related Project Site

I-15 Capacity Improvements

Expansion of Kinder-Morgan

CalNev Pipeline System

(Approximate Location)

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions
DesertXpress 3.17 Irretrievable and Irreversible Committments of Public Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.17-1 

3.17 IRRETRIEVABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE COMMITTMENTS OF 

PUBLIC RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of public resources identified in Chapter 

3.17, Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of Public Resources, of the 

Draft EIS are not substantially changed by the proposed project modifications and 

additions. 

As stated in Chapter 3.17, Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitments of 

Public Resources, of the Draft EIS, implementation of the action alternatives would 

involve a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land 

used in the construction of the rail line, stations, maintenance and other ancillary facilities 

associated with this project would be considered an irreversible commitment during the 

time period that the land is used for a project. However, if a greater need arises for use of 

the land or if the rail line and facilities are no longer needed, the land could be converted 

to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion would ever be 

necessary or desirable. 

Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and construction materials such as cement, 

aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended to construct the project. 

Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the making of 

construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are 

not in short supply and their use would not have an adverse effect upon continued 

availability of these resources. Any construction would also require a substantial one-time 

expenditure of funds, which are not retrievable. 

The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents and businesses 

within the region would benefit from the improved quality of the transportation system. 

These benefits would consist of improved accessibility, increased capacity and energy 

savings, which are expected to outweigh the commitment of these resources. 

The project modifications and additions evaluated in this Supplemental Draft EIS do not 

substantially change the irretrievable and irreversible commitment of public resources 

associated with the DesertXpress project. As noted in the Supplemental Draft EIS, the 

project modifications and additions contribute to a decrease in total energy demand 

(fewer barrels of oil), and thus could be considered to reduce the commitment of 

irretrievable resources, relative to the conclusions made in the Draft EIS. 
DesertXpress 3.17 Irretrievable and Irreversible Committments of Public Resources

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.17-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.18 Short Term Versus Long Term Productivity

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.18-1 

3.18 SHORT TERM USES VERSUS LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Project implementation, including the project modifications and additions, would result 

in attainment of short-term and long-term transportation and economic objectives at the 

expense of some long-term social, aesthetic, biological, noise, parkland, and other land 

use impacts. 

3.18.1 BUILD ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 3.18, Short Term Uses Versus Long Term Productivity, of the Draft 

EIS identified various losses and benefits associated with the action alternatives. The 

proposed project modifications and additions would not change the conclusions in the 

Draft EIS pertaining to short term uses and long term productivity. 

Short-term losses include: Economic losses experienced by businesses affected by 

construction impacts such as noise, motorized and non-motorized traffic delays or 

detours; and recreational impacts such as access inconveniences to the little league fields 

and/or the regional park, and trail detours or closures. 

Short-term benefits include: Increased jobs and revenue generated during 

construction. 

Long-term losses would include: Permanent loss of plant and wildlife resources, 

visual impacts, conversion of farmlands and grazing lands, noise increases, cultural 

resource site values lost, use of construction materials and energy. 

Long-term gains include: Improvement of the transportation network in the region 

and the project vicinity, increased capacity and reduction of congestion on the I-15 

freeway, use of private funds to construct and operate the project, more expeditious 

project delivery through use of private funds, increased jobs, revenue through creation of 

new passenger train operation, and support of approved development. 

3.18.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative would offer none of the gains or have the losses listed above. 

Private funding to provide public transportation facilities would not be available. 
DesertXpress 3.18 Short Term Versus Long Term Productivity

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.18-2 

This page intentionally left blank. 
DesertXpress 3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.19-1 

3.19 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

The development of a high-speed passenger rail service from Victorville, CA to Las 

Vegas, NV would result in unavoidable adverse effects to the physical and human 

environment, which were described in Chapter 3.19, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, 

of the Draft EIS and included effects in the following resource categories: Traffic and 

Transportation, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, and Section 4(f) Resources. The 

unavoidable adverse effects for the DesertXpress project have not substantially changed 

since the publication of the Draft EIS. However, the project modifications and additions 

would reduce impacts in several areas, which are described below. 

3.19.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

In Chapter 3.19, Unavoidable Adverse Effects, of the Draft EIS, the unavoidable 

adverse effects at a Victorville Station Site 1 and two Stoddard Wells Road intersections 

were detailed. VV3 (VV3A or VV3B parking options) would avoid the significant impacts 

associated with VV1 and VV2 and would not result in any unavoidable adverse effects. 

3.19.2 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

There is the potential for unavoidable adverse effects to cultural resources sites resulting 

from direct impacts from placement of the rail line and facilities and the use of TCAs 

within the APE. Project modifications and additions would result in differing numbers 

of impacts to cultural resources, as summarized in Table S-3.7-2. 

3.19.3 SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES

One of the project modifications and additions was designed by the Applicant to reduce 

the potential impact of the project on the integrity of a cultural resource site assumed to 

qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 
DesertXpress 3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

3.19-2 

This page intentionally left blank.